Bombay High Court
Ramesh Hanamant Savalatot vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:12947
KVM
1/5
902 - ABA 739 OF 2025.doc
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.03.20
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
12:52:41 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 739 OF 2025
Ramesh Hanamant Savalatot ..... Applicant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda a/w. Ms.Seema Dighe, Mr.Shubham Sane,
Mr.Rajesh Ranglani for the Applicant.
Ms.Rutuja A. Ambekar, A.P.P. for the State.
Mr. S. D. Giramkar, P.H.C. present.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH, 2025
Order :-
This application is filed for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with
Crime No. 500/2024 dated 18th August, 2024 registered with
Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 178, 180, 181, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The present applicant is accused no.5. There are total seven
accused. Five accused have been arrested and are behind bars. One
more accused is absconding. The pre-arrest bail application filed by
the present applicant before the Sessions Judge at Barshi has been
KVM
902 - ABA 739 OF 2025.doc
rejected by an order dated 14 th February, 2025. Hence, the present
pre-arrest bail application has been filed.
3. In the complaint attached to the FIR, there are specific
allegations made against the present applicant that he has participated
in the act of counterfeiting the currency. An amount of Rs.65 lacs has
already been seized by the police. It has been alleged that the
machine used for printing the counterfeit currency is owned by the
present applicant. On the basis of which, an FIR has been alleged.
4. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant has
no role to play in the present crime and has been implicated only on
the basis of suspicious. The investigation is completed. Therefore, the
custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not necessary.
5. The learned A.P.P. submits that the co-accused has revealed the
name of the present applicant as the person who has procured the
machine of printing counterfeit currency. Even by the CDR, it has
been found that the present applicant has constantly been in touch
with the accused - Hiramani. The offence committed by the present
applicant is an offence against the country. It is a serious offence and
the custody of the present applicant will be necessary.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and I have gone
KVM
902 - ABA 739 OF 2025.doc
through the documents produced before me.
7. In the F.I.R. offences registered under section 178
(imprisonment for life), Section 180 (imprisonment for term which
may extend to 7 years), Section 181 (imprisonment for life) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Counterfeit currency leads to
substantial economic losses to the country. Such monies are used to
finance criminal networks and terrorist activities.
8. There are seven accused arraigned in the present crime. Five
accused are already behind bars. One of the accused is absconding
and the present applicant has filed the pre-arrest bail application.
9. On a secret information received by the police, the police has
made a track of a Nexon car. When the car was intercepted by the
police, they found that the driver was holding un-explained cash with
him. Thereafter, the police raided the house of the co-accused
wherein 'ultra violet machine' was found. The counterfeit cash was
found. In the house arrested co-accused has named the present
applicant as a person who owned the 'ultra violet machine'.
10. The investigation is still going on and there is likelihood that the
police after investigation will find amount involved in the present
crime is much more than what has been mentioned.
KVM
902 - ABA 739 OF 2025.doc
11. Considering the gravity of the crime, the physical presence of
the applicant for interrogation is necessary for completion of
investigation. Moreover, possibility of pressurizing and threatening
witnesses and tampering with evidence in much higher in case the
Applicant is granted pre-arrest bail.
12. The Supreme Court in case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar
C.K. and another1 in paragraph 12 has held as under :-
"........... In many anticipatory bail matters, we have
noticed one common argument being canvassed that no
custodial interrogation is required and, therefore,
anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a
serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects
to be considered along with other grounds while deciding
an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be
many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the
accused may not be required, but that does not mean that
the prima facie case against the accused should be
ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself,
cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
(Emphasis supplied)
1 (2022) 17 SCC 391
KVM
902 - ABA 739 OF 2025.doc
13. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case
of the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma2, in paragraph 4 which reads as under:-
"4. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order
under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he is interrogated.
Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a
mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is
fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third
degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument
can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has
to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct
themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with
the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as
offenders."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In the light of allegations in the FIR, the documents on record
and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in above
judgments, according to me, no case is made out to grant protection
to the present applicant. The anticipatory bail application stands
rejected.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
2 AIR OnLine 1997 SC 797
