IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 28 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2026 AVINASH VISHNU JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. S. S. Jadhav h/f Mr. Chaitanya Chandrakant Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 27th JULY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0581/2025, registered with Shahada Police Station, Districdt Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(4), 311, 138, 351, 115(2), 61(2), 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3, 4, 25, 25(1k)(z) of the Arms Act. 2. The First Information Report reveals that the incident took place on 27.10.2025, during which the informant alleged that 30 kg of silver ornaments, 200 grams of gold ornaments, and cash of Rs. 6 lakhs were robbed. Admittedly, the present applicant is not alleged to have participated in the actual incident of robbery. 28 ABA 597.2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:31039 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the material collected during the course of investigation does not disclose any incriminating evidence against the applicant. Inviting attention to the First Information Report, he submits that the informant had initially alleged theft of 30 kg of silver ornaments. However, after recovery of more than 54 kg of silver ornaments, the informant gave a supplementary statement correcting the quantity allegedly robbed to be 76 kg silver. It is contended that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the silver ornaments were recovered from the agricultural land belonging to the applicant, such recovery by itself does not warrant his custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that though certain gold ornaments have been recovered from the co-accused, there is no material to indicate that any of the accused had entrusted or handed over the gold ornaments to the present applicant. The learned Advocate also points out that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, though one of the co-accused happens to be his brother-in-law. 4. Learned APP opposed the application by submitting that the discrepancy regarding the weight of the gold and silver ornaments mentioned in the First Information Report could be attributed to an inadvertent error on the part of the informant, who is a goldsmith. It is further contended that since the recovery of the silver ornaments was effected from the agricultural 28 ABA 597.2026.odt 2 of 4 land of the applicant, his involvement in the offence is prima facie established. It is, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for effecting recovery of the remaining gold ornaments. 5. Prima facie, the First Information Report shows that the informant had alleged robbery of 30 kg of silver ornaments. It is only after recovery of more than 54 kg of silver ornaments that a supplementary statement came to be recorded correcting the quantity. The explanation offered by the learned APP that the discrepancy was a bona fide mistake is difficult to accept, particularly when the First Information Report contains specific details regarding the weight of the ornaments and even if submissions of learned APP an accepted that the chits indicating weight of ornaments were also got stolen, still it appears improbable that a goldsmith would commit an error of such magnitude by stating that 30 kg of silver ornaments were robbed instead of more than 76 kg. A prima facie doubt therefore is created about correctness of the report. 6. As regards the recovery, it is true that the silver ornaments are stated to have been recovered from the agricultural land of the applicant. However, it is not in dispute that one of the co-accused is the brother-in-law of the applicant and the recovery has been made from agricultural filed, it is difficult to personally attribute it to the applicant. Most importantly, the charge-sheet 28 ABA 597.2026.odt 3 of 4 does not disclose any material indicating that any of the accused had handed over the stolen gold ornaments to the applicant. In view of the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 0581/2025, registered with Shahada Police Station, Districdt Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(4), 311, 138, 351, 115(2), 61(2), 140(1), 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3, 4(25), 25(1k)(z) of the Arms Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (vi) He further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 7. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 28 ABA 597.2026.odt 4 of 4