32-ABA-165-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2026 Sumit Prakash Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents ------- Mr. Vaibhav Halake, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State. PSI A. S. Kudle, Murgud Police Station, is present. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 28th September, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent – State. 2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 34 of 2026, registered at Murgud Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 308(6), 308(7), 351(2) and 352, read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant states that there are 5 Accused in Crime No. 34 of 2026, Applicant being Arjun 1 32-ABA-165-2026.doc Accused No. 5. 4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 01.01.2026, Rushikesh Dhende (Accused No. 1) called the Complainant’s father (Krushna Dabhole) and informed him that Tejpal Kamble (Accused No. 2) had come to meet him at Murgud Naka. Upon meeting Accused No. 2 and Saurabh Kamble (Accused No. 3), the Complainant’s father was threatened with complaints under the POCSO Act, the Atrocities Act and for rape, in connection with his friendship and WhatsApp conversations with a minor girl. The accused persons demanded 15 ₹ lakh to avoid registration of the offences and threatened the Complainant’s father with harm to his family if he did not pay. Between 02.01.2026 and 04.01.2026, the accused persons and an unknown person continued threatening Complainant’s father over the telephone. On 06.01.2026, the Complainant’s father paid 15 lakh in cash to ₹ Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3 and an unknown person. However, they told the Complainant's father that the 15 lakh was a token amount and ₹ further demanded an additional 35 lakh, threatening to lodge criminal ₹ complaints if the amount was not paid by 25.01.2026. Subsequently, on 12.01.2026, the police informed the Complainant that they had registered a complaint against his father and took him to the police station. The Complainant states that he learnt of the extortion from his Arjun 2 32-ABA-165-2026.doc father during visits to him in judicial custody and handed over a pen drive containing call recordings and voice recordings of the conversations to the police. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged the present FIR on 22.02.2026 against Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3, and one unknown accomplice. The Applicant was made Accused No. 5 in the present crime, based on the disclosure made by the co-accused regarding his alleged involvement in the crime. 5. On 09.04.2026, the following order was passed in this Application:- 1. Learned Advocate for the Applicant tenders across the bar an Order dated 8th April 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Bail Application No. 276 of 2026, whereby Original Accused No. 2, namely Tejpal Yuvraj Kamble, has been released on regular bail. 2. The Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that paragraph 10 of the said Order records that the Investigating Officer has seized certain pen drives, mobile handsets with SIM cards, and more pertinently, the muddemal amount of Rs. 14 lakhs has already been recovered. He further submits that the Applicant's name is not mentioned in the FIR and has been introduced only in the second remand application, merely alleging that he was present and that certain amounts were taken. 3. The Learned APP submits that the Investigating Officer is unable to remain present before the Court today and seeks time to take instructions. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). 5. Stand over to 18th April 2026. Arjun 3 32-ABA-165-2026.doc 6. Prayer clause (b), referred to in the order dated 09.04.2026, reads thus:- (b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Anticipatory Bail Application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim bail to the Applicant in connection with C.R. No. 34 of 2026 registered with Murgud Police Station, Kolhapur; 7. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent - State, has raised a strong objection to entertaining this Anticipatory Bail Application. She states that the Applicant, involved in a serious offence, did not appear before the Investigating Officer at Murgud Police Station on any date, even after being granted interim bail on 09.04.2026. She submits that by this conduct, the Applicant has abused the process of law and taken Court orders for granted. She submits that in view of the Applicant's failure to appear before the Investigating Officer at Murgud Police Station, the investigation in Crime No. 34 of 2026 has stalled as regards the Applicant. She submits that the Applicant's presence before the Investigating Officer is required for a thorough investigation, to conduct a test identification parade, given the serious allegations made in the FIR by the Complainant. She submits that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. She therefore opposes the present Application. Arjun 4 32-ABA-165-2026.doc 8. With reference to the said submission of Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant is not named in the FIR and that the Applicant has been brought on record and arrayed as an accused in view of the remand order dated 27.02.2026. He submits that the entire amount alleged to have been extorted has been recovered at the instance of the other accused, who have been released on regular bail. 9. Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer, Murgud Police Station, on 2 dates, i.e. 23.02.2026 and 24.02.2026. He submits that the Investigating Officer also seized the Applicant's mobile phone on one of those dates. He submits that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required. He reiterates that the FIR contains no allegations against the Applicant. 10. In response to the submissions advanced by Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, by referring to the investigation papers, submits that a witness (Gulab Thadke) has categorically stated that the Applicant, along with Accused No. 2, is involved in the crime, having come to the spot and even collected the extortion amount. She further, by referring to the Arjun 5 32-ABA-165-2026.doc statement of Gulab Thadke, submits that the Applicant was found counting the cash handed over as the extorted amount. She submits that the other accused have been released on regular bail upon completion of the investigation against them. She submits that the Applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. Hence, she reiterates that the Applicant is required for custodial interrogation in the present crime, which is of a serious nature, i.e., extortion of money. 11. Perused the records and the investigation papers as relied by Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP. 12. Prima facie, the involvement of the Applicant, as submitted by Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, is evident in Crime No. 34 of 2026, as per the statement of the witness Gulab Thadke. As submitted by Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, the Applicant's involvement in the crime is in extorting money and even counting it after receiving it from Krushna Dabhole. 13. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, has submitted that part of the extortion amount remains unrecovered and that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required to unearth the involvement of other persons and to identify any other such instances. Mrs. S. N. Arjun 6 32-ABA-165-2026.doc Deshmukh, learned APP, further states that a test identification parade is also required. 14. Despite the order dated 09.04.2026, which granted the Applicant ad-interim bail, the Applicant chose not to appear before the Investigating Officer or cooperate with the investigation. 15. Though Mr. Vaibhav Halake, on instructions from the Applicant, has submitted that the Applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer at Murgud Police Station on 23rd and 24th February, 2026, and even surrendered his mobile, there is no material to support his statement. 16. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer disputes and denies the statement made by Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant. She submits that this is another attempt made by the Applicant to mislead the Court. 17. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, submits that the practice in the State of Maharashtra is that once an accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, the accused maintains a diary and the Investigating Officer affixes their seal and the date and time of the appearance of the accused. She states that the Applicant has not Arjun 7 32-ABA-165-2026.doc produced proof of his appearance. 18. Upon this submission by Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned APP, to a query addressed to Mr. Vaibhav Halake, learned Advocate for the Applicant, as to whether he has any such proof, he, on instructions from the Applicant, answers in the negative. 19. In view of the above and more particularly, a prima facie case having been made out against the Applicant, warranting his custodial interrogation in Crime No. 34 of 2026 no indulgence is warranted. This application is therefore rejected. 20. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 165 of 2026 is dismissed. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 8 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.09.30 12:18:35 +0530