Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Yogesh Hari Salonkhe vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Yogesh Hari Salonkhe vs State of MaharashtraYogesh Hari Salonkhe v. State of Maharashtra

Allowed¶25

Yogesh Hari Salonkhe v. State of Maharashtra

Bail – Condition of deposit

Bombay HC9 Apr 2026WP/1601/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J., 9th April 2026) in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 2026, Yogesh Hari Salonkhe v. State of Maharashtra: quashed Clause 1(b) of Magistrate (First Class), Kalyan's bail order in RCC No. 804/2025 requiring the accused to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as security; held bail cannot be conditioned on deposit or payment to the victim, relying on Ramesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 7 SCC 461 and Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571). Offence: Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (cheating/fraud, alleged Rs. 18 lakh railway-job scam). Keywords: bail condition, security deposit, conditional bail, quashing, BNS 2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Clause 1(b) of the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2026 (condition to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of security) quashed and set aside.

Why is it important?

A bail order cannot be made conditional upon either deposit or payment of any amount to the victim by the accused. ¶16

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; Clause 1(b) of the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2026 (condition to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of security) quashed and set aside.

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan, requiring the petitioner/accused to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of security as a condition of bail, is sustainable in law.

Court's answer

A bail order cannot be made conditional upon either deposit or payment of any amount to the victim by the accused.

Ratio / Principle

The condition imposed by the learned Magistrate directing deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security cannot be sustained, and Clause 1(b) of the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Condition of deposit — Writ Petition under Article 226 jurisdiction of Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Side) against order dated 22nd January, 2026 of learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025, by which the petitioner/accused, prosecuted under Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly defrauding the first informant and witnesses of Rs. 18,00,000/- on the pretext of securing Indian Railways employment, was released on bail subject to deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of security — Held, a bail order cannot be made conditional upon either deposit or payment of the amount to the victim by the accused, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 7 SCC 461, and Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571, wherein the Supreme Court directed that bail pleas be decided strictly on merits and that no conditional order of regular or anticipatory bail be passed — Condition unsustainable; Clause 1(b) of the impugned order quashed and set aside; Writ Petition allowed.

A

22-WP-1601-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2026

Yogesh Hari Salonkhe ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

..Petitioner

Mr. Anand S Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. P P Malshe, APP for the Respondent – State. PSI – S P Choudhari, MFC P.S.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9^th APRIL 2026

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22^nd January, 2026, passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025 whereby while releasing the petitioner on bail, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner/accused to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) in the Court by way of security.

The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The gravamen of indictment against the petitioner is that, the petitioner had induced the first informant and witnesses to part with the amount by

1/3

SAINATH, PA

22-WP-1601-2026.DOC

making a representation that the petitioner would secure employment for the informant and witnesses in the Indian Railways. The petitioner had allegedly defrauded the first informant and witnesses to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs). Thus, after ascribing reasons for the release of the petitioner on bail, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by way of security, as a condition of bail.

It is well recognized that, the bail order cannot be made conditional upon either deposit or the payment of the amount, to the victim, by the accused. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi¹ , and

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.² ,

In the case of Gajanan Gore (supra), the Supreme Court has directed that, the High Courts and the trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make. It was further directed that, in any circumstances, the

1 (2023) 7 SCC 461

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571

SAINATH, PA 2/3

22-WP-1601-2026.DOC

High Courts or trial Courts shall not pass a conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bail.

The aforesaid being the position in law, the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate, cannot be sustained.

Thus, the Writ Petition stands allowed.

Clause 1(b) of the impugned order stands quashed and set

aside.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

SAINATH, PA

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan, requiring the petitioner/accused to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of security as a condition of bail, is sustainable in law.¶10
The court held
A bail order cannot be made conditional upon either deposit or payment of any amount to the victim by the accused.ratio¶16

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of DelhiRelied on¶16
(2023) 7 SCC 461 · Who else cites this
Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.Relied on¶17
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5)¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 22nd January, 2026 in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025 releasing the petitioner on bail subject to a condition (Clause 1(b)) to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- in Court by way of security.¶10
learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan · 22nd January, 2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner facing prosecution in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025 for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.¶11
Prior proceeding
Allegation that the petitioner induced the first informant and witnesses to part with money by representing he would secure them employment in the Indian Railways, defrauding them of Rs. 18,00,000/-.¶15

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Yogesh Hari Salonkhe¶4
Anand S Patil
respondent
State of Maharashtra¶6
P P Malshe

Coram

AI extract

N. J. Jamadarauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 9 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 31 Mar 2026
Case no.: WP/1601/2026
CNR: HCBM010108172026
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. J. Jamadar

Kamlesh Himmantlal Shah and Ors. vs Jaswantlal Mohanlal Khandar and Ors.
8 Apr 2026
Hi Rock Construction Company vs Nirmala Dialani
8 Apr 2026
Dr Cheryl Misquitta vs the Bandra Gymkhana and Ors.
8 Apr 2026
M/S. Shah Promoters and Developers Thr. Its Partners Sanjay and Rajesh C. Shah vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and Ors.
9 Apr 2026
Indrajeet Chandrasen Shirole and Ors. vs Vidyaben Jayantilal Thakkar and Ors.
9 Apr 2026
Virendra C. Doshi and Anr. vs Jayesh Chunilal Doshi and Ors.
9 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Yogesh Hari Salonkhe v. State of Maharashtra, WP/1601/2026 (BOM), decided on 9 April 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of DelhiRelied on¶16
Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.Relied on¶17

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 22nd January, 2026 in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025 releasing the petitioner on bail subject to a condition (Clause 1(b)) to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- in Court by way of security.learned Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan · 22nd January, 2026
Petitioner facing prosecution in Regular Criminal Case No. 804/2025 for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Allegation that the petitioner induced the first informant and witnesses to part with money by representing he would secure them employment in the Indian Railways, defrauding them of Rs. 18,00,000/-.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N. J. Jamadar

Parties & counsel