Bombay High Court

Nanda Nanasaheb Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 September, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

   2025:BHC-AS:38316                                                              908 ABA 2496.25.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         Digitally
         signed by              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2496 OF 2025
         ARJUN
ARJUN    VITTHAL
VITTHAL  KUDHEKAR      Nanda Nanasaheb Gaikwad                                      ...Applicant
KUDHEKAR Date:
         2025.09.15          Versus
         23:23:21
         +0530         State of Maharashtra                                         ...Respondent


                       Mr. Kamar Ali Shaikh a/w Mr. Rajabhau Chaudhari a/w Kishan
                       Chaudhari i/by Mr. Vishal Kolekar, for Applicant.
                       Mr. S.M. Yadav, APP for the State.
                       PSI, Mr. Rahul Pawar,
                       ASI Mr. Santosh Dolas, Pune City Crime Branch present.


                                                     CORAM:     MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                                                     DATED :    12th September 2025
                       P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State. On 11 th

September 2025 I have heard submissions of Mr. Karmarkar,

learned APP.

2. The Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with

CR No.777 of 2023 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,

120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Sections

82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. The prosecution has also

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised

Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act") and applied the same.

3. Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant is

a lady and Senior Citizen of 70 years. He submits that the

Applicant is not involved in the crime and therefore the Applicant

be granted anticipatory bail.

4. I have heard Mr. S. A. Karmarkar, learned APP yesterday and

Ms. Yadav, learned APP today. Both of them submitted that the

offence is very serious, provisions of MCOC Act has been invoked

and that the Applicant is absconding and accordingly the

Application has been filed on behalf of the Prosecution for issuance

of proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 and the learned Special Court (MCOCA), Pune

issued a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS requiring the

Accused to appear before the Court on or before 30th August 2025

and inspite of the same she is absconding. They relied on following

four judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that if the

Accused is absconding and declared as proclaimed offender then

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

in that case there is no question of giving such offender benefit of

Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC").

          (i)     Srikant Upadhyay V. State of Bihar1 .
          (ii)    State of Haryana V. Dharamraj2.,
          (iii)   Lavesh V. State (NCT of Delhi)3
          (iv)     Abhishek V. State of Maharashtra4

5. Before consideration of the rival contentions, it is necessary

to set out the prosecution case as set out in Paragraph No.2 of the

Order dated 7th August 2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application

No.2369 of 2025 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which reads

as under :-

"2] The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant is the wife of the accused Nanasaheb Gaikwad. It is alleged that both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, prepared a forged Occupation Certificate in respect of first floor of the premises situated on plot No. 108, survey No. 127/1A to 1E, Aundh Pune purportedly issued by the Local Authority. Based on such forged document, they leased out a commercial premises to the State Bank of India. Pursuant to the said lease, the lease amount was transferred by the Bank in the joint bank account held by the present applicant and the main accused Nanasaheb."

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 2 (2023) 17 SCC 510 3 (2012) 8 SCC 730 4 (2022) 8 SCC 282

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

6. At the outset, it is required to note the submissions of

learned APP that as the Applicant - Accused is absconding and

declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving such

offender benefit of Anticipatory Bail. As noted herein above,

learned APP has relied on the four Judgments of the Supreme

Court. In these decisions it has been held by the Supreme Court

that if from the materials and information on record, it is clear that

the Applicant is not available for interrogation and investigation

and is declared as "absconder" then in such cases, there is no

question of granting pre-arrest bail. It has been specifically held

that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and

is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of

warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section

82 of CrPC, such person is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory

bail.

7. In the present case, as the learned Sessions Court, by Order

dated 10th July 2025 has issued proclamation under Section 84 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requiring the Accused

to remian present before the said Court on or before 30 th August

2025. The learned APP states that the said order has not been

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

complied with. Therefore, by Order dated 11th September 2025 this

Court has directed that the Applicant shall personally remain

present before the Court as proclamation has been issued. Today,

the Applicant is not present in the Court. The learned APP states

that the Applicant is not available at her residence and she is

absconding.

8. Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that

the Applicant is an old lady and she is not in position to move

outside the house and not able to walk even in the house also and

therefore she is not present in the Court today. However, Mr. Yadav,

learned APP as noted hereinabove submitted that the Applicant is

absconding and not available at her residence. At that time, Mr.

Shaikh, learned Counsel submitted that he has no instructions

about whereabouts of the Applicant as he is taking instructions

from the relatives. Thus, it is very clear that the Applicant is

absconding to conceal herself and not making available for

interrogation and investigation.

9. Thus, the observations of the Supreme Court in above four

cases are squarely applicable to the present case. Thus, as observed

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

by the Supreme Court as the Applicant is not available for

interrogation and investigation and is declared as "absconder" then

in such cases, there is no question of granting pre-arrest bail. It has

been specifically held that when a person against whom a warrant

had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order

to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed

offender, such person is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory

bail.

10. The Applicant has following antecedents :-

i. CR No.293 of 2021 registered with Chaturshringi Police Station, District-Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 406, 420, 506, 354, 120, 392 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention And Eradication Of Human Sacrifice And Other Inhuman, Evil And Aghori Practices And Black Magic Act, 2013.

ii. CR No.325 of 2021 registered with Chaturshringi Police Station, District-Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 386, 341, 506(2), 141, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, Section 3 and 25 of the the Arms Act, 1959, Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

11. This is the case where although the offence is registered in

the year 2023 and provisions of the Maharashtra Control of

Organised Crime Act, 1999 have been invoked in the year 2023,

anticipatory bail application has been filed for the first time in the

year 2025 being Criminal Bail Application No.2369 of 2025 before

the learned Sessions Court, Pune under Section 438 of the CrPC

seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 777 of 2023 registered with

Chatushrungi Police Station, for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC,

Sections 82 and 83 of Registration Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2)

and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,

1999. In this case, as the Applicant was absconding, an application

has been filed on behalf the prosecution of issuance of

proclamation for the Applicant under Section 84 of the BNSS Act

and accordingly, the learned Special Judge, MCOC issued

proclamation by Order dated 10th July 2025 requiring the Accused

to appear before the learned Special Judge, MCOC, Pune on or

before 30th August 2025 which the Applicant has failed to comply.

12. Ms. Yadav, learned APP states that the Petitioner is filing

proceeding after proceedings for avoiding arrest. She submits that

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

the Criminal Writ Petition No.2455 of 2024 has been filed seeking

quashing and setting aside of C.R. No. 777 of 2023 registered at

Chatushrungi Police Station. The said Writ Petition has been

allowed to be withdrawn by Order dated 19 th June 2024 passed by

the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter another Writ Petition

bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.4012 of 2024 has been filed

seeking same prayer without disclosing withdrawal of earlier

Criminal Writ Petition No.2455 of 2024. In the Order dated 9th

December 2024, another Division Bench passed in Writ Petition

No.4012 of 2024 have recorded that there is an attempt to

suppress important facts and recorded that these practices are

required to be strongly deprecated. The Order dated 19 th June

2024 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2455 of

2024 reads as under:

"1. Learned Advocate for Petitioner on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw petition unconditionally.

2.. Disposed off as withdrawn."

Dusane

908 ABA 2496.25.DOC

The relevant part of Order dated 9th December 2024 passed by the

Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.4102 of 2024, reads as

under:

"(5) Considering that earlier Writ Petition No.2455/2024 for the same subject matter in respect of C.R. No.777 of 2023 registered at Chatushrungi Police Station Pune was withdrawn unconditionally.

We are not inclined to entertain this Petition and hence, it is dismissed."

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagannath Shetty

alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra 5 has held

that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not

to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons

for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person

accused of grave offences. It has been held that 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.