29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2025 Vaishali Nitin Bhosale …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w. Mr. Shubham Sudam Sane, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Ugle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP appearing for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. By this Application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant is challenging the order dated 15th May 2025 passed by the learned Page 1 Sonali 29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, passed in Criminal Bail Application No.2437 of 2025 by which, the anticipatory bail has been granted to the Respondent No.2. 3. The impugned order has been passed about 1 year and 4 months back. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent No.2 has misused the said liberty. 4. It is the submission of Mr. Ugle learned Counsel of the Applicant that the Respondent No.2. has deliberately shown incorrect boundaries in the registered Sale Deed. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the dispute is predominantly of civil in nature. 6. The uncle of the Applicant (through Applicant who is Constituted Attorney of his uncle) had filed Civil Writ Petition No.15402 of 2023, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6th December 2024. While disposing of the said Writ Petition, the Division Bench made the following observations in paragraphs 5 to 7: Page 2 Sonali 29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC “5. Considering the nature of the grievance as made by the petitioner, we are of the opinion, that as the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a part of the land in the said Gat number which according to the petitioner is 62.98 Ares, and which is open land of the ownership of the petitioner, as on date, it is necessary for the authorities to ascertain the correct area, and an actual measurement of the land which is being acquired from the petitioners existing holding. This for the reason that the grievance of the petitioners that although the petitioner is the owner of such land and the petitioners land being subject matter of acquisition, compensation is not being offered to the petitioner. 6. In our opinion, all these issues would be within the jurisdiction of the Special Land Acquisition Officer/SDO who needs to undertake an appropriate inquiry and after ascertaining appropriate measurements, resort to demarcate the actual land from the petitioner’s holding, as sought to be acquired. 7. Needless to observe that in so far as the lands which are already sold by the petitioner and which are of the ownership of third parties, if such lands are subject matter of acquisition, third parties would be entitled for compensation. However, an appropriate inquiry in this regard needs to be made so that there is clarity on the entitlement to the payment of compensation. We accordingly dispose of this petition by the following directions: i. The land from Gat No.44 subject matter of acquisition be appropriately ascertained by actual measurement and on verification of Page 3 Sonali 29-APPLN-276-2025.DOC the ownership after an opportunity of a hearing is granted to all the parties. ii. After ascertaining the correct position on the ownership and the area subject matter of acquisition, the SLAO / SDO, Pune shall take further appropriate steps, to acquire such land by negotiation and on the entitlement of the appropriate persons for payment of compensation, in accordance with law.” (Emphasis added) 7. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, no case is made out for setting aside the order granting bail. 8. However, Mr. Ugale, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant states that Respondent No.2 is Police Officer and pressurizing the Revenue Authorities. Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 denies the said contention. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Application is disposed of. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.23 10:54:59 +0530