Bombay High Court
Rohan Shankar Nikam vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:15779
927-ABA-464-2025 (CR) .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 464 OF 2025
Rohan Shankar Nikam
Aged : 20 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Bhumkar Ali, Paud,
Dist. Pune ...Applicant
AMOL Versus
DILIPRAO
NAWALE 1. The State Of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Paud Police
Digitally signed
by AMOL Station, Pune)
DILIPRAO
NAWALE
Date: 2025.04.05
12:57:49 +0530 2. XYZ,
(copy to be served through IO,
Samarth Police Station, Pune) ...Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Prashant Raul a/w. Adv. Mayur Sanap & Adv. Suraj Mhadgut,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the State.
Adv. Kunal Sinha, Advocate for respondent No.2.
____________________________________
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 3 APRIL 2025
JUDGMENT.:
1. The present Application is filed by the applicant under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding with Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.520/2024, registered
with Paud Police Station, District Pune (Rural) for the offences
Amol D. Nawale
927-ABA-464-2025 (CR) .doc
punishable under section 74, 75, 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 as well as under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
2. The learned APP further submits that a Non-Bailable Warrant has
already been issued against the present applicant. He is a habitual
criminal, there are two cases pending against him bearing C.R.No.
371/2024 and C.R.No. 513/2024. The victim is aged 14 years.
5. In the judgment of the Srikant Upadhyay V/s. State of Bihar and
Anr reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 282 in paragraphs 25 and 26 it
was clarified that when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the
applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power of pre-arrest
bail.
6. However, it is further clarified that this will not deprive the power
of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme exceptional cases, in the
interest of justice. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment are
reproduced herein below:-
25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to
be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory
bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be
left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said
power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim
protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent
as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We
shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an
interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section
is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted
arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At
Amol D. Nawale
927-ABA-464-2025 (CR) .doc
any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is
not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not
deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such
grant.
26. The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the consistent
disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court.
They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the
summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when their
co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained
regular bail. Though the appellants filed an application, which they
themselves described as "bail-cum-surrender application" on 23.08.2022,
they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance
of non-bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before
the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a
fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section
82 Cr.PC., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter
appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct
of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with
no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-
arrest bail.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case where a
Non-Bailable Warrant is issued against the present applicant and the
same has not been challenged by the applicant, according to me, this is
not a case which falls under the exceptional category as clarified by the
Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay (supra).
8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Srikant
Upadhyay (supra), the applicant is not entitled to seek pre-arrest bail.
The anticipatory bail application, hence stands rejected. This Court has
not gone into the merits of the anticipatory bail applications.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Amol D. Nawale
