Allowed¶22

Deepak Bhavangi Karani v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 May 2026APL/706/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Application No. 706 of 2026, Deepak Bhavangi Karani v. State of Maharashtra, N. J. Jamadar, J. (06-05-2026): Section 438(3) CrPC — Magistrate taking cognizance must issue bailable warrant in conformity with Section 438(1) directions against a person granted pre-arrest bail; straightaway non-bailable warrant and proclamation quashed; offence under Section 406 IPC, 1860; charge-sheet under Section 299 CrPC dated 22-07-2015; undertaking to appear before Magistrate on 13-05-2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of issuance of non-bailable warrant and proclamation quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the Applicant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 13th May, 2026. ¶22

Deepak Bhavangi Karani vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders of issuance of non-bailable warrant and proclamation quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the Applicant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 13th May, 2026.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the straightaway issuance of a non-bailable warrant (and proclamation) against the Applicant, in whose favour an order of pre-arrest bail had been passed, was sustainable, given that under Section 438(3) of the Code the Magistrate taking cognizance is required to issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the directions of the Court under sub-section (1) of Section 438.

¶15

Court's answer

Under Section 438(3) of the Code, if a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence decides that a warrant be issued against a person who has been granted pre-arrest bail, the Magistrate shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the directions of the Court under sub-section (1) of Section 438; a straightaway non-bailable warrant is contrary to this provision.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In the instant case the learned Magistrate straightaway issued a non-bailable warrant; it does not appear that the Applicant was arrested after the order of pre-arrest bail, and he would have furnished bail only in the event of arrest by the police; the Applicant also explained the circumstances in which he came to know of the pendency of the proceedings and the issue of the non-bailable warrant.

¶15

Key takeaways

In view of the position in law with regard to the process to be issued against a person in whose favour an order of pre-arrest bail has been passed, and the facts of the case, the impugned orders of issuance of non-bailable warrant and proclamation stand quashed and set aside, subject to the Applicant appearing before the learned Magistrate on 13th May, 2026.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application allowed. Where an order of pre-arrest bail has been passed in favour of an accused and the Magistrate taking cognizance decides that a warrant be issued against him, Section 438(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates issuance of a bailable warrant in conformity with the directions of the Court under sub-section (1) of Section 438; a straightaway non-bailable warrant, followed by proclamation, is impermissible. Charge-sheet under Section 299 CrPC (dated 22nd July 2015) in an offence under Section 406 IPC, 1860; the Applicant was not arrested after the pre-arrest bail order and would have furnished bail only in the event of arrest. NBW and proclamation quashed, subject to the Applicant appearing before the learned Magistrate on 13th May 2026. Coram: N. J. Jamadar, J.

¶1

49.APL706.2026.DOC

¶2

Digitally signedby ARUNA 49.APL706.2026.DOC ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 2026.05.0814:41:56 +0530

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 706 OF 2026

¶5

Mr. Deepak Bhavangi Karani. … Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Mr. Swapnil Ambure a/w. Ms. Shubhangi Satra and Ms. Nida Khan, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP for Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 6^th MAY 2026

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

¶9

The challenge in this Application is to an order passed by the

¶10

learned Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrant against the Applicant and the order of issue of proclamation. The learned Counsel for the Applicant invites attention of this Court to the roznama in the proceedings dated 22^nd July, 2015. On that day, the Respondent filed the charge-sheet purportedly under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”). The learned Magistrate noted that an order of pre-arrest bail was passed in favour of the Applicant. However, the Applicant had not

1/3

Talwalkar

49.APL706.2026.DOC

furnished bail. Hence, straightaway a non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued.

¶15

It does not appear that the Applicant was arrested by the police after the order of pre-arrest bail was passed by this Court. The Applicant would have furnished bail only in the event of arrest by the police. In view of the provisions of Section 438 (3) of the Code, if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant be issued against a person who has been granted pre-arrest bail, then the Magistrate shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the directions of the Court under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has straightaway issued a non-bailable warrant.

¶16

In any event, the Court finds that the charge against the Applicant is that of having committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this application, the Applicant has explained the circumstances in which he came to know about the pendency of the proceedings and the issue of nonbailable warrant.

2/3

Talwalkar

49.APL706.2026.DOC

The learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, submits that the Applicant will appear before the learned Magistrate on 13^th May, 2026.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid position in law with regard to the process to be issued against the person in whose favour an order of pre-arrest bail has been passed, and the facts of the case, the Application deserves to be allowed.

¶22

The Criminal Application stands allowed.

¶23

The impugned orders of issuance of non-bailable warrant and proclamation stand quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the Applicant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 13^th May, 2026.

¶24

3/3

¶25

Talwalkar

Deepak Bhavangi Karani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Bhavangi Karani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vedant Infracon Thr Its Partner Mr Rahul Premprakash Goel vs Mr. Ganesh Balasheb Shendkar and Ors.

Khajabhai Sangam Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Abdul V.G. Chaudhary and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Housing Dept and Ors.

Sabira Salim Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Nayananben Bhogilal Doshi Since Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors. vs Tejashri Jayntilal Doshi Deceased

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. vs Karthik Velamakanni

Sd Svp Nagar Redevelopment Pvt. Ltd. vs Ashrafuz Zaman Shaikh