Partly allowed

Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Mar 2026APL/1608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application challenged a bail condition restricting entry into village Nhavara. The High Court modified the order, limiting the restriction to one year from the FIR date due to the applicants' residence and senior citizen status.

What did the court decide?

The bail condition not to enter village Nhavara, Taluka Shirur is limited to one year from the date of lodging of the FIR (7th June, 2026).

Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

4-APL1608-2025.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1608 OF 2025

¶6

Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh And Anr ...Applicant Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶8

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶9

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.04.01 10:40:56 +0530

¶10

Mr. Shubham Gharbudve, for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for the State. PSI Mr. Sagar Shelake, Shirpur Police Station, present.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 26^th MARCH, 2026

¶12

PC:-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

The challenge in this application is to an order dated 10^th October, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby, while partly allowing the application for modification of the condition of bail not to enter the limits of Pune District, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the applicants – accused not to enter the local limits of village Nhavara, Taluka Shirur, till the decision of the Case.

¶15

The incident seems to have occurred on 3^rd June, 2025

¶16

and the FIR was lodged on 7^th June, 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352,

¶17

1/2

¶18

4-APL1608-2025.DOC

¶19

351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”).

¶20

The applicants claim to be agriculturists and the condition not to enter the limits of village Nhavara, Taluka Shirur, according to the learned Counsel for the applicants, causes great hardship to the applicants.

¶21

Having regard to the facts that the applicants are residents of village Nhavara, Taluka Shirur and Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are senior citizens, the condition not to enter the local limits of the said village Nhavara till the decision of the case arising out of CR No.391/2025 operates onerously affecting the livelihood of the applicants, this Court is inclined to limit the said condition for the period of one year from the date of lodging of the FIR only, as by that time, the threat perception may subside considerably.

¶22

The application thus stands allowed.

¶23

The impugned order stands modified to the effect that the applicants – accused shall not enter the local limits of village Nhavara, Taluka Shirur for the period of one year from the date of lodging of the FIR i.e. till 7^th June, 2026.

¶24

2/2

Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prapti Pritesh Parab vs State of Maharashtra

Rajiv Gulabchand Pandey vs Mrs. Mary George and Another

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. vs Saji Mathews

Ramesh Mohanlal Chordia vs Raju Danchand Barde (Bardiya) and Anr.

Praveen Sambhaji Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ranjit @ Ajaya Madhukar Kalamkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.