32-APEAL-692-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2026 Avinash Goraksh Choudhari …Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Vikas Kolekar, a/w Mr. Kunal Shirgire, Mr. Prakash Y., Mr. Prashant Patole, Adv. S. Gaikwad, Ms. Neeta Kolekar, Mr. Siddhant Malegaonkar & Mr. Shubhankar Malegaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Aniket N., a/w Ms. Priyesha Patel, a/w Mr. Shubham W., a/w Adv. Noel Jacob, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 30.09.2026. P.C. : 1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Bail Application No. 4891 of 2025. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the present appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 1552 of 2025 registered at Hadapsar police station for the Pramod S.Lakare 1/5 PRAMOD SANTOSH LAKARE Digitally signed by PRAMOD SANTOSH LAKARE Date: 2026.10.01 19:49:07 +0530 32-APEAL-692-2026.doc offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, 351(3), 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act. 3. There is a property dispute between the family of the first informant and the family of co-accused Rahul Tupe. It is alleged that the first informant and his family members who belong to Scheduled Caste had been constantly threatened to vacate the said disputed property. It is alleged that on 06.06.2024 the first informant and her family members were again threatened by the co-accused who were armed with pistol and at that time the present appellant was with them. It is further alleged that on 07.06.2024, the present appellant and other co-accused made the first informant and her husband to sign certain documents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Pramod S.Lakare 2/5 32-APEAL-692-2026.doc appellant has nothing to do with the alleged property dispute between the family of the the first informant and the family of co- accused Rahul Tupe. It is submitted that there is a delay of about five months in lodging the first information report. It is submitted that the investigation is over and the prosecution has filed the charge-sheet against the co-accused. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant to allay any apprehension of threat is willing to stay out of Pune City. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that the present appellant was with the other co-accused at the time of incident dated 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024. It is further submitted that the FIR was not immediately lodged due to fear of the co-accused Rahul Tupe against whom there are many criminal cases and one of the case is for the offence punishable under the MCOC Act. It is submitted that the appellant is involved in two more crimes. It is submitted that thus the appellant may not be released on anticipatory bail. 7. I have perused the first information report. The alleged Pramod S.Lakare 3/5 32-APEAL-692-2026.doc property dispute appears to be between the family of the first informant and the family of the co-accused Rahul Tupe. No specific overt act is attributed to the present appellant either in the incident dated 06.06.2024 or 07.06.2024. Considering the said fact, I am inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail on certain condition. In the result, the following order is passed : O R D E R i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The order impugned is set aside. iii) In the event of the arrest of the appellant in Crime No. 1552 of 2025 registered at Hadapsar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, 351(3), 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, he shall be released on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. iv The appellant shall not enter into the limits of Pune City except to attend the dates before the Pramod S.Lakare 4/5 32-APEAL-692-2026.doc trial Court. v) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. vi) The appellant shall not commit any other crime. vii) Liberty is granted to the prosecution as well as to respondent No.2 to file an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail in case the appellant commits breach of any of above condition. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Pramod S.Lakare 5/5