Rahul Nivrutti Bodke vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Nivrutti Bodke vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail: applicant to be enlarged on P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that he attend the concerned police station as and when required and shall not attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶after ORDER (iii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 269 of 2025 (Sinnar MIDC Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik) for offences punishable under Sections 334(1), 305, 324(4), 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

Bail granted on the grounds that there was no recovery at the instance of the applicant, the applicant had been behind bars for more than four months, and the trial was likely to take time to conclude.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 269 of 2025 on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Key takeaways

Condition of bail: the appellant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.ratio¶ORDER (ii)
Condition of bail: the appellant shall not attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person concerned with the case.ratio¶ORDER (iii)
The observations in the order were made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Regular bail — Offences punishable under Sections 334(1), 305, 324(4), 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Alleged theft of copper wires from the godown of the first informant's company on 11 September 2025; Crime No. 269 of 2025, Sinnar MIDC Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik; arrest stated to be based on CCTV footage — Court found no recovery at the instance of the applicant, detention exceeding four months, and trial likely to take time — Applicant enlarged on P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount — Conditions: attendance at concerned police station as and when required; no attempt to influence or contact witnesses or persons concerned with the case — Observations confined to the purpose of granting bail; Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced thereby. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Bail Application No. 1633 of 2026, Shivkumar Dige, J., 5 May 2026)

68-BA-1633-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1633 OF 2026

Rahul Nivrutti Bodke ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Mr. Chetan H. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 5^th MAY, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, appellant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.269 of 2025 registered with Sinnar MIDC Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 334(1), 305, 324(4), 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.05.07 17:22:37 +0530

It is prosecution’s case that on 11^th September, 2025 copper wires were stolen from the godown of the first informant’s company. 3. It is contention on learned counsel for the applicant, there is no recovery at the instance of the applicant. The applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bar for more than four months, it may take time to conclude the trial, hence, requested to allow the application.

Page 1 of 3

68-BA-1633-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

It is contention of learned APP that the entire incident is captured in CCTV footage and on the basis of CCTV footage, the applicant has been arrested. If he is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is behind bars for more than four months. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, I pass order.

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.269 of 2025 registered with Sinnar MIDC Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The appellant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The appellant shall not attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is

Page 2 of 3

68-BA-1633-2026 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

accordingly disposed off.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3