[Cites 33, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Omkar Dnyanoba Satpute vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13982
1 BA/255/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 255 OF 2026
Dadasaheb S/o Baburao Khindkar
Age : 42 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o Belwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed ... Applicant
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Pimpalner Police Station, Dist. Beed ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2026 IN BA/255/2026
(Oimkar Dnyanoba Satpute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another)
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. N.V. Gaware h/f. Mr. Z.H. Farooqui
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. N.R. Dayma
Advocate for applicant : Mr. Sanjeeva B. Deshpande, Sr. Advocate i/by
Mr. A.L. Kanade, Advocate in Cri. Appln. No. 579/2026
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 25.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2026
ORDER :
Heard both sides. Criminal Application No. 579 of 2026, seeking to
assist the Public Prosecutor, is allowed.
2. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.57
of 2025, registered with Pimpalner Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences
punishable under Section 307, 367, 368, 120-b, 324, 323, 504, 506, 342, 143,
147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. First Information Report is lodged on 25.09.2025. The applicant is
arrested on 13.03.2025. Charge-sheet is filed on 06.06.2025 against eight
persons including present applicant who is shown as accused no. 1.
2 BA/255/2026
4. The gravamen of the allegations in the First Information Report
lodged at the instance of injured victim Onkar, is abduction and torture at the
hands of the accused from period 23.01.2024 to 25.01.2024. Applicant wanted
the informant to withdraw offence bearing CR No. 2 of 2024 registered against
him. Informant was abducted from Pune and brought to Belwadi at the instance
of the applicant and during journey, he was beaten up. The informant was
associated with Samadhan Khindkar which was disliked by the applicant and,
therefore, he was further assaulted, abused and threatened in the field of
applicant at Belwadi. His torture was videographed and circulated on the social
media. Informant is said to have sustained injuries on the head and he was
brought to the Doctor for treatment on 23.01.2024.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Nitin Gaware for the applicant submits that
there is belated registration of the First Information Report which created doubt. It
is submitted that the alleged torture is false and concocted because already "B-
Summary" Report was submitted in Offence bearing CR No. 2 of 2024 and no
question of asking the informant to withdraw any complaint. It is further submitted
that the injuries are simple in nature and informant was taken to the Doctor by the
applicant himself. There is no mens rea to commit any serious offence or any
premeditation. It is a case of false implication.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
transcription of the video is very weak piece of evidence. There is nothing
incriminating against the applicant to show involvement in serious offence. It is
submitted that the arrest of the applicant is unlawful as the grounds of arrest were
never supplied to him within stipulated period. It is submitted that there is long
incarceration and further detention is not necessary.
3 BA/255/2026
7. Per contra, learned APP submits that there is strong motive for
committing offence by the applicant along with the co-accused. The role of the
applicant is predominant which is evident from the statements, panchanama and
the material collected during the investigation. It is further submitted that
applicant has serious criminal antecedents. He is well off and he is likely to
influence the witnesses if released on bail. It is further submitted that applicant
has actively participated in the abduction, torture and assault on the informant at
various places. It is submitted that the applicant was supplied the grounds of
arrest in writing as well as orally and no prejudice is caused to him. It is
submitted that the applicant had legal assistance since day one.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande submits that the
applicant was aware of the grounds of arrest and he had legal assistance since
beginning. It is submitted that no prejudice is shown by the applicant. He had
opportunity to agitate the ground before the Supreme Court. He did not even
challenge the order dated 13.03.2025. It is submitted that applicant is estopped
from raising plea that his arrest is unlawful.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTUAL ASPECT
9. FIR is lodged by the victim himself on 13.03.2025 for the incident
which occurred from 23.01.2024 to 25.01.2024. The informant and his family
members were at loggerhead with the applicant because applicant's father
Dnyanoba and Samadhan Khindkar were implicated in a case of rape and offence
under the Prevention of Atrocities Act by the informant. The motive for abducting
informant was two-fold. One, that he was associated with Samadhan. Another,
he was not withdrawing the offence against the applicant.
4 BA/255/2026
10. The applicant was made accused in offence bearing CR No. 2 of
2024 punishable under section 307, 323, 504, 34 of IPC, registered on
03.01.2024 with Pimpalner Police Station. On 19.03.2024 informant submitted
application to the Superintendent of Police stating that due to some
misunderstanding, a false offence was registered by him and in fact no such
incident occurred. Informant's statement under section 164 was also recorded
which was on the same line. Thereafter, report of B-Summary was submitted. The
first instance of abduction is alleged to have occurred in the present case on
23.01.2024. There was no reason for him to lodge report on 13.03.2025 with the
motive that applicant was insisting him to withdraw the offence already informant
had acted as per desire of applicant. The motive alleged, appears to be doubtful.
11. Another surprising factor which is unexplained, is that the applicant
had a grudge that informant was associated with Samadhan Khindkar, who was
his real brother. No material is collected to show rivalry between real brother and
its gravity. Therefore, the motive shown in the matter is suspicious. The
informant is suppressing true and the material facts.
12. Accused are alleged to have assaulted informant while travelling
from Pune to Beed. After reaching at Dhekanmoh on 23.01.2024, he was brought
to the agricultural land of the applicant and further tortured. Thereafter, he was
taken to the dispensary by the applicant himself. The statement of Dr. Vishal Kale,
who treated him shows that he was brought on 23.01.2024 by ambulance driver
Sanjay Khindkar and the wound on the head was sutured. The extract of O.P.D.
also corroborates the treatment given by Dr. Kale. The statement of the driver
Sanjay reveals that applicant had been to Samarth Hospital. There was
interaction between the witness and the applicant who brought informant there.
5 BA/255/2026
The injury certificate of informant shows that he was taken to hospital by
applicant. The injuries were reported to be simple. It is incomprehable as to why
the applicant would carry the injured informant for the treatment. There is total
absence of mens rea for committing any serious offence.
13. Heavy reliance is placed by the prosecution on panchanama of the
transcript of the video to show involvement of the applicant. Applicant and co-
accused are alleged to have tortured and assaulted the informant which was
videographed. The transcript was of the incident of 23.01.2024. After the alleged
torture informant was taken to the Samarth Hospital and shown to Doctor Vishal
Kale for the treatment by none else than the applicant. It reveals from the
sequence of events that the intention of the complainant was to teach lesson to
the applicant or to terrorize him or threaten him. The injuries are simple in
nature. I find that applicant cannot be said to be involved in a serious offence.
He is behind bar since 13.03.2025 which is sufficient incarceration.
14. I have gone through the antecedents reported against the applicant.
Those are 6 (six) in number. Applicant could have committed serious offence
when informant was in his custody. Out of the offences pitted against him, he was
acquitted from two offences. There is no information available for offence CR
No.118 of 2015 registered with Khaparkheda Police Station, Nagpur. Considering
the criminal antecedents, stringent condition can be imposed on the applicant. I
find that applicant is not required to be detained in jail any further considering the
factual matrix of the matter.
CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS
15. It is vehemently contended by Advocate Mr. Gaware that arrest of
6 BA/255/2026
the applicant is illegal because he was not communicated grounds of arrest. A
specific plea to that effect was taken when earlier Bail Application was pressed
into service. In the present Application also, specific grounds have been taken.
The same submissions were advanced when police custody was granted vide
order dated 13.03.2025. The arrest was held to be legal by a reasoned order
which was not assailed before any other forum. Pertinently, the same ground was
pressed into service in Bail Application No. 696 of 2025 which was rejected on
30.04.2025. Being aggrieved, the applicant had approached Apex Court by
preferring in SLP (Criminal) 7575 of 2025. It was withdrawn on 14.07.2025. It
was possible for the applicant to agitate the ground of illegal arrest but no
endeavour was made. This creates doubt regarding the bona fides of the
applicant is raising plea.
16. My attention is adverted to the notice dated 13.03.2025 issued
under section 50 which shows that the grounds of arrest are not spelt out but it is
stated that the information regarding arrest was supplied to Samadhan Baburao
Khindkar and it bears the acknowledgment. The arrest panchanama also shows
that the grounds were communicated and the information was given to
Samadhan. The entry in the station diary shows that the grounds of arrest were
communicated to the relatives. The grounds for the arrest were reiterated while
seeking police custody on the date of arrest itself. In such a situation, I find that
there is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the CrPC. The submissions in this
regard is devoid of any substance.
17. It is relevant to notice that applicant has failed to demonstrate the
prejudice caused to him. Since his arrest, he is being represented by a lawyer
which is evident from the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by JMFC granting police
7 BA/255/2026
custody. He was having legal assistance and he was having knowledge of the
grounds as well as the relevant information of the arrest. The grievance of the
applicant cannot be countenanced at this stage of the proceeding.
18. Learned counsel Mr. Nitin Gaware has relied upon judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal V. Union of India reported in (2024)
7 SCC 576 in which the arrest was held to be illegal for non-compliance of section
19 sub-section (1) of PMLA Act, 2002. He also referred to judgment of Supreme
Court in Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana and another reported in (2025) 5 SCC
799 which was rendered on 07.02.2025 which also reiterates importance of
section 19(1). Further reliance is placed on judgment of Directorate of
Enforcement V. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240 and
Ahmed Mansoor and others Vs. The State; (Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025), to
buttress that accused would be entitled to bail if the arrest is without following due
procedure of law.
19. He further relied on judgment of Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court in Mahesh Pandurang Naik V. State of Maharashtra; 2024 SCC OnLine
Bom 3918 as well as Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of
Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254 to show that there is difference in informing reasons and
grounds of arrest. He has fairly referred to judgment of Supreme Court in Mihir
Rajesh Shah V. State of Maharashtra and another ; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356
rendered on 06.11.2025.
20. Respondents also referred to judgment of Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka V. Sri Darshan Etc. (Criminal Appeal No. 3528 - 3534 of 2025 - dated
14.08.2025); 2025 INSC 979, Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Karan Singh
Vs. State NCT of Delhi (W.P.(CRL)4203/2025) and learned Single Judge of
8 BA/255/2026
Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2025 (Walmik Baburao Karad
Vs. The State of Maharashtra), to justify the arrest of the applicant.
21. It is relevant to refer to following extracts of Supreme Court in
Vihaan Kumar (supra), to understand the purport of section 50(A) which reads as
under :-
"42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-A CrPC, making it obligatory on the
person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons
nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would be able to take
immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as
permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not
have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated
persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the
detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating
the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned
above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the
reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through
his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest
possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person,
but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be
rendered illegal."
22. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court considered the ratio of Mihir Rajesh
Shah (supra) and laid down that it would operate prospectively in following
words :-
"19. There is one more aspect of the case. The grievance about the alleged
procedural lapse has been raised very belatedly i.e. after more than one year
and nine months of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being
caused to the petitioner, who was represented by counsel from day one.
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1702 has held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a 'prejudice-oriented test' when
examining alleged procedural lapses and, further held that mere absence of
written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in
demonstratable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend
themselves.
20. In conspectus of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the
challenge to the arrest of the petitioner fails on three counts:
9 BA/255/2026
i. The law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it mandates
uniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively;
ii. The petitioner's clear and evident contemporaneous awareness of the
substance and basis of his arrest from the inception; and
iii. Absence of any demonstrated prejudice, coupled with the inordinate delay
in raising the grievance."
23. Relying on the same, learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 693 of 2025 (Walmik Karad V. The State) (supra) also adopted the
same view.
24. The respondents have relied upon judgment of State of Karnataka
V. Sri Darshan (supra) and following extracts as under :-
"20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr. P.C. is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach
has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural
lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest
illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to
defend.
20.1.7.In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect
that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally
represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an
immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been
placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is,
at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated
above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the
gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie
case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those
decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach
adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in
furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody
illegal or entitle the accused to bail."
25. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka V. Sri Darshan, Mihir Rajesh Shah and judgment of Delhi High Court
in Karan Singh (supra), the arrest of the applicant in the present matter is prior to
crucial date 06.11.2025 and can not be illegal. I find no procedural lapses in his
arrest. I find no merits in the submissions advanced by Advocate Mr. Nitin
Gaware in this regard.
10 BA/255/2026
26. I have already observed that applicant is entitled to be released on
bail on the merits of the matter and long incarceration.
27. Hence, I pass the following order :-
I) The Bail Application is allowed.
II) The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.
57 of 2025, registered with Pimpalner Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences
punishable under Section 307, 367, 368, 120-b, 324, 323, 504, 506, 342, 143,
147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following conditions:
(a)The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.75,000/-
(Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) with one or more solvent
surety of like amount.
(b)The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or
contact with the prosecution witnesses.
(c) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and
address to the investigating officer.
(d) The applicant shall report the Investigating Officer on every
Saturday between 10.00 am and 04.00 pm till commencement
of the trial.
(e) The applicant shall surrender his ADHAAR and PAN Cards.
(f) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the
trial.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
arp/-
