904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 413 OF 2026 Chetan Dattatraya Khandekar & Anr. … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra And Another … Respondents ---- Mr. Anand Patil for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State. ------- Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. Date : 25th August 2026. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State. 2. By this Second Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 316 of 2025, dated 14th June 2025, registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 309(4), 126(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. osk 1 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx 3. From the FIR, the prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 13th June 2025, at around 10 p.m., the Informant and his brother-in-law were returning from Vijapur (Karnataka) after procuring groceries, carrying Rs.7,00,000/- in cash, kept in a plastic carry bag under the driver’s seat of their Bolero Pickup bearing No. MH12/VT-7848. In the early morning of 14th June 2025, around 4:00 a.m., while passing through the Satara-Vita-Tasgaon- Bedag Mangsuli road, another Bolero Pickup (MH-10/DT-5417) overtook and obstructed the Informant’s vehicle by stopping sideways in front. The Informant identified the said vehicle as belonging to Chetan D. Khandekar (accused No.1). Soon thereafter, a swift car arrived and stopped near the vehicle. The Applicants, who are known to the Informant, got down from the car armed with a sickle, along with two unidentified accomplices. They ruthlessly attacked the Informant’s vehicle with the weapon, causing the Informant and his brother-in-law to flee into a sugarcane field out of fear for their lives. Thereafter, the Applicants and their unidentified accomplices fled the scene with Rs.7,00,000/- in cash from the Informant’s vehicle. 4. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Application. He submits that filing this Second Application for Anticipatory Bail after the dismissal of the First Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025 by this Court is an abuse of the process of law. He states that the Applicants are re- osk 2 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx agitating the matter on the same set of facts. He therefore seeks dismissal of this Application, which, according to Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, the learned APP, is devoid of any substance, with costs. 5. In response to the objection raised by Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that there is no bar to filing a second Anticipatory Bail Application before either the Sessions Court or this Court. He therefore submits that the request made by the Applicants in this Anticipatory Bail Application be considered. 6. Perused the records. 7. Records reveal that upon registration of Crime No. 316 of 2025 at the Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, the Applicants, apprehending arrest, approached the Sessions Court, Sangli, for pre-arrest bail by filing Criminal Bail Application No. 455 of 2025, which was rejected on 14th July 2025. 8. On the dismissal of Criminal Bail Application No. 455 of 2025, the Applicants were before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail by way of Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025. This was the First pre-arrest bail application before this Court. 9. On 28th January 2025, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 osk 3 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx of 2025 was disposed of. The order dated 28th January 2026 reads as follows:- “1. After arguing at length on merit, when this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, learned Advocate for applicants, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application. 2. Permission is granted. Application is dismissed and disposed of as withdrawn”. (emphasis supplied) 10. Astonishingly, after withdrawing Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025 before this Court, the Applicants again approached the Sessions Court, Sangli, with a Second pre-arrest bail application, registered as Criminal Bail Application No. 400 of 2026, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Sangli, by order dated 4th July 2026 on merits. Paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 of the order dated 4th July 2026 read as follows: “12] However, it is submitted by the investigating officer that during investigation, it was revealed that the said CCTV footage was produced in a pen drive by the father of the applicant/accused, namely Dattatraya Khandekar, claiming that the same was taken from the office premises of Shri Deepak Mankar at Kothrud. Upon verification during investigation, it was found that the concerned office operator, namely Nikhil Anil Khavale, specifically stated that no such footage was provided to Dattatraya Khandekar or any other person. His detailed osk 4 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx statement was recorded. Further, when the said CCTV footage was shown to him, he categorically stated that the same does not pertain to the CCTV cameras installed in the said party office. 13] The aforesaid material, prima-facie, indicates that the CCTV footage relied upon by the applicant is not reliable and cannot be accepted at this stage, and therefore the contention raised by the applicants/accused deserves to be rejected. 14] The applicants/accused have made out no ground to consider this anticipatory bail application in their favour. Thus, in view of the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of the allegations, the criminal antecedents of applicants/accused and the need for custodial interrogation to trace co-accused and recover the weapon and stolen amount, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. Hence, following order. ORDER Application is hereby rejected.” 11. The Applicants are now before this Court with this Second Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application. Specifically, this is the Fourth pre-arrest bail application by the Applicants in Crime No. 316 of 2025, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the same facts. 12. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, has submitted that there is no bar to maintaining a second Anticipatory Bail Application to overcome the objection of Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP. However, Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, has overlooked the requirement that, to maintain a second or successive application in a given osk 5 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx case, there must be substantial material or a substantive change in the factual situation and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law. 13. Neither the contents of this Application nor the contentions of Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants before this Court, indicate any substantial material or a substantive change in the factual situation and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law that would warrant entertaining the second Anticipatory Bail Application. By contrast, the Sessions Court, Sangli, in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the order dated 4th July 2026, passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025, suggests that the Applicants created the situation. 14. The observations of this Court in the order dated 28th January 2026, passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2203 of 2025, suggest that the matter was argued at length and that the Court was not inclined to consider the Anticipatory Bail Application, as such, withdrawn by the Applicants. 15. In G. R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that successive Anticipatory Bail Applications ought not to be entertained on specious reason of change in circumstances. 16. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, is justified 1 (2021) 16 SCC 725 osk 6 of 7 904-ABA-413-2026 (CR).docx in his objections regarding the maintainability of this Second Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before this Court. 17. In view of the above, given the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of the allegations in Crime No. 316 of 2025, I decline to entertain the Second Application for Anticipatory Bail. 18. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 413 of 2026 is dismissed. [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ] osk 7 of 7 OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2026.08.27 12:44:35 +0530