Bombay High Court
Roshani W/O Romal Naktode vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 9 September, 2025
1/5 1 ba 475-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO. 475 OF 2025
Sau.Roshani Romal Naktode Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Wagh, counsel for the applicant.
Ms.M.A.Barabde, APP for the State.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 09/09/2025
1. Heard.
2. The applicant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.
143 of 2025 registered with Police Station Lakhandur, District
Bhandara for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant
approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. It is alleged that the applicant, who is a doctor has came
in contact with the family of the informant and she has stated that
she will give the job to the brother-in-law of the first informant.
Thereafter, she had asked the first informant to pay the amount of
45,00,000/- as she can give the dealership of petrol pump to him.
Kavita
2/5 1 ba 475-25
She has duped many persons by giving assurance on the pretext of
giving job. When the applicant has asked her for money, she has
given the cheque which was dishonoured. Thereafter, the first
informant has lodged the complaint and the crime came to be
registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
stated that the applicant has also lodged the complaint bearing
Crime No. 26 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
115, 296, 3(5), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The monitory transaction is there, but the allegations made
against the applicant are denied. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicant has stated that the mandatory provisions for issuing
the notices is not complied with by the police before registration of
the Crime. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr.
reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.
5. The learned APP has opposed the application stating
that this is a serious case. The applicant has duped many persons
and has grabbed the amount. She has not co-operated with the
police machinery, when she was attending the police station as per
the conditions imposed in ad-interim protection application.
6. The learned APP has relied on the judgment of High
Court of Delhi in the case of Shamikh Shahbaz Shikh Vs. State
Kavita
3/5 1 ba 475-25
Government of NCT, Delhi in Bail application No. 731 of 2025
and CRL M.A.No.5303 of 2025 in support of her argument.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.2
has stated that the applicant has not received any notice from the
police. She has no any apprehension of the arrest and that cannot
be the reason for granting the bail to the applicant. Hence, prayed
to reject the application.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
learned APP appearing for non applicant/State and the learned
counsel appearing for non-applicant No.2. It is the mandatory
provision to issue notice under Section 41 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil cited supra specifically has stated as below:-
"23. Section 41 under Chapter V of the
Code deals with the arrest of persons. Even for
a cognizable offence, an arrest is not mandatory
as can be seen from the mandate of this
provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person
has committed a cognizable offence, punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may be
less than seven years, or which may extend to
the said period, with or without fine, an arrest
could only follow when he is satisfied that there
is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said
person has committed an offence, and there is a
necessity for an arrest. Such necessity is drawn
to prevent the committing of any further
offence, for a proper investigation, and to
prevent him/her from either disappearing or
tampering with the evidence. He/she can also
Kavita
4/5 1 ba 475-25
be arrested to prevent such person from making
any inducement, threat, or promise to any
person according to the facts, so as to dissuade
him from disclosing said facts either to the
court or to the police officer. One more ground
on which an arrest may be necessary is when
his/her presence is required after arrest for
production before the Court and the same
cannot be assured.
24. This provision mandates the police
officer to record his reasons in writing while
making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-
bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing.
Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons
when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no
requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the
offence alleged is more than seven years, among
other reasons.
25. The consequence of non-compliance
with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the
benefit of the person suspected of the offence.
Resultantly, while considering the application
for enlargement on bail, courts will have to
satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this
provision. Any non-compliance would entitle
the accused to a grant of bail".
9. Serious allegations are made against the applicant and
she has duped many persons by giving the assurance of job. The
cheque given by the applicant is also dishonoured. Though the
allegations are serious in nature, as the mandatory provision is not
complied with by the police machinery as per the guidelines of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicant cannot be arrested. Hence, the
applicant is protected by granting anticipatory bail on following
conditions.
Hence, the following order-
Kavita
5/5 1 ba 475-25
i] The application is allowed on the same terms and
conditions contained in the order granting ad-interim protection
except the condition of attendance.
ii] The order dated 02.07.2025 granting ad-interim
anticipatory bail is confirmed.
iii] The applicant shall attend the concerned police
station every day from 1.00 pm to 2.00 p.m. till filing of
the charge sheet in the matter.
iv] The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Signed by: Kavita P Kavita
Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2025 18:21:41
