Anirudha Alias Prem Dattaguru Madav vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anirudha Alias Prem Dattaguru Madav vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Anirudha @ Prem Dattaguru Madav to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount in connection with Crime No. 687 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025 (Shivajinagar Police Station, District Kolhapur), subject to conditions: (a) not to pressurize prosecution witnesses or tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner; (b) to attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court; (c) to submit Aadhar and Pan Cards, detailed address, phone numbers and two near relatives to the Investigating Officer; (d) on breach of any condition, the Prosecution may move the concerned Court for cancellation of bail notwithstanding that this Court granted bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody in Crime No. 687 of 2025 (Shivajinagar Police Station, District Kolhapur) for offences under Sections 75(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, should be admitted to regular bail.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of counsel and the APP and the material on record including the chargesheet, the applicant has been in custody for more than six months while co-accused have already been enlarged/released on bail; accordingly, further continued incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified.

Ratio / Principle

With the investigation complete and the chargesheet filed, and given the number of accused and the witnesses the prosecution proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within a reasonable period; further incarceration in the circumstances is therefore neither warranted nor justifiable.

Key takeaways

On that view the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and admitted him to regular bail on a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed in the order.ratio¶7
The observations rendered in the judgment are confined to this bail application, and the trial Court shall not be influenced by them.obiter¶ORDER(iii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Bail Application No. 344 of 2026 (Bombay HC, Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.; 04-05-2026) - ALLOWED. Regular bail granted to Anirudha alias Prem Dattaguru Madav in Crime No. 687 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025, Shivajinagar Police Station, District Kolhapur, for offences under Sections 75(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (alleged obscene remarks by co-accused Datta towards the first informant's daughter-in-law, followed by an unlawful assembly armed with iron sickles, stones, bricks and wooden sticks assaulting the complainant family; applicant alleged to have attacked Sumaiyya with a sickle). Grounds relied on by the Court: applicant in custody over six months; investigation complete and chargesheet filed; parity - one co-accused enlarged on bail by this Court in BA/3672/2025 dated 17.12.2025 and other co-accused (Nos. 3 to 6 per counsel) released by the trial Court; and, given the number of accused and witnesses, the trial is very unlikely to commence and conclude within a reasonable period, making further incarceration neither warranted nor justifiable. Release ordered on a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount, with conditions barring witness pressure/evidence tampering, requiring attendance on every trial date unless exempted, and submission of Aadhar/Pan Cards, address, phone numbers and two near relatives to the I.O.; breach open to cancellation. Observations confined to this application and not to influence the trial Court. Counsel's contentions of false implication, delay in lodging the report, simple injuries, youth and absence of antecedents were urged but not separately adopted as findings by the Court.

36-BA-344-26.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2026

ANIRUDHA ALIAS PREM DATTAGURU MADAV VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. M. Latake a/w Mr. Nikhil D. Gore and Mr. Pritam P. Gurav

APP for Respondents : Mr. Nitin B. Patil

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 04-05-2026

PER COURT:-

The applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No.687 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District Kolhapur, for the offences under sections 75(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

The prosecution case is that on 21 October 2025 at about 10:00 PM, her daughter-in-law Sumaiyya Amir Pathan was proceeding accompanied with her husband. While they were passing on the road, their neighbor Datta/co-accused allegedly, passed obscene remarks and made inappropriate gestures towards her, causing embarrassment. When husband questioned

36-BA-344-26.odt

2

his conduct, Datta along with Prem /present Applicant, and other co-accused allegedly gathered and formed an unlawful assembly with an intent of creating terror, being armed with weapons such as iron sickles, stones, bricks and wooden sticks. They then assaulted Amir Pathan and Sumaiyya Pathan, during which Applicant allegedly abused and threatened and attacked Sumaiyya with a sickle causing injury, while Datta abused in obscene language and hit Amir Pathan on the head with a stone causing injury, and Akshay Bhonge and others also beat the complainant and her family members with sticks and physical force. When the others tried to intervene, the Accused assault them. Hence, the report.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no prima facie case against the applicant. There is unexplained delay in lodging the report. The injuries suffered by the injured/daughter-in-law of the first informant are simple in nature. The applicant is young. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is completed. The chargesheet is filed. Co-accused Nos.3 to 6 are released on bail. Hence, prayed to admit the applicant to bail on the ground of parity.

The learned APP opposed the application and submitted that

36-BA-344-26.odt

3

the applicant and co-accused assaulted the daughter-in-law of the first informant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. and perusal of the material on record including the chargesheet, indicates that the applicant is in custody for more than 6 months. In the meantime, the coaccused is enlarged on bail by this Court vide order in BA/3672/2025 dated 17.12.2025, while the other co-accused are released on bail by the trial Court. Thus, further continued incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified.

Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intent and purpose, resultantly, the chargesheet is filed. Having regard to the number of the accused and the witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within a reasonable period. As such, further incarceration, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to be either warranted or justifiable.

In that view of the matter, I am persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the order:-

36-BA-344-26.odt

4

ORDER

(i) The bail application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant, Anirudha @ Prem Dattaguru Madav, be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rs.Fifty Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.687 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District Kolhapur, for the offences under sections 75(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the following conditions :-

(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court.

(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and phone numbers and two of the near relatives.

(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move the concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail, notwithstanding the fact that this Court has granted bail to the Applicant.

(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]

rrd