11-APPLN-29-2026 (CR).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2026 Ajithkumar Rameshwar Tiwari & Anr. .....Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Vaduj Police Station .....Respondent ... Mr. Ghadge Avesh Ajay, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Applicants, being dissatisfied with the order dated 11th June 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, have preferred this Application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the “BNSS”), seeking relaxation/modification of Condition No. 3 in the operative part of the order dated 03.02.2026. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicants contended that, in view of the mandate laid down in the judgment and order in Gajanan Dattatray Gore versus State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 and Prantik Kumar and Anr. versus The 1 Cr. Appeal No.3219 of 2025 decided on 28th July 2025 Suresh 11-APPLN-29-2026 (CR).odt State of Jharkhand and Anr.2, the Court should not pass a conditional order directing the accused to deposit a particular amount and then exercise its discretion; as such, he urged that imposition of such condition is unreasonable and prayed for allowing the Application. 4. In response, the learned APP does not dispute the law laid down in both the orders. 5. Having considered the facts of the case as well as the observations made in the aforesaid judgment and order, in my view, the imposition of the condition directing the accused to deposit a particular amount while granting bail is unreasonable and contrary to the mandate laid down in the case of Gajanan (supra). It would be appropriate to relax Condition No. 3, whereby the Applicants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs each in cash before the Court. Accordingly, to that extent, the said condition needs to be set aside. 6. As a result, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Accordingly, clause No. 3 of the operative part of the order dated 03.02.2026 in the Bail Application no. 210/2025 is set aside. The application is disposed of. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) 2. Cr. SLP Diary No.4297 of 2026 decided on 03-02-2026 Suresh