IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1660 OF 2026 SHARAD PITER JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Sachin S. Kotkar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 173 of 2026, registered with Newasa Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The First Information Report indicates that the present applicant impersonated himself as the owner of Gut No. 453 situated at Newasa and executed a sale deed in favour of the purchaser. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is aged about 68 years and that he was misguided by the co-accused, to whom he had entrusted the work. In this regard, he drew the attention of the Court to the affidavit executed by the applicant at the instance of Sachin Dhongde. It is his submission that the offence in question is based upon documentary evidence 910 ABA 1660.2026.odt 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:38749 and, as such, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the applicant by referring to the allegations against the applicant in the First Information Report. 5. Even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the applicant had entrusted some work to Sachin Dhongde, he would not have impersonated himself as the owner of Gut No. 453 by mistake. There is prima facie evidence on record to indicate that the applicant impersonated himself as the owner of the said property and, as such, his prima facie involvement is found in the crime. This Court does not agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant that custodial interrogation is not necessary in the present case. Once the involvement of a person is prima facie found in a crime like the one in hand, the question of granting interim pre-arrest bail to such an applicant does not arise. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned APP that this is a case wherein the custody of the applicant is necessary for the purpose of investigation. 6. Since this Court is not inclined to grant any interim relief to the applicant, the application itself deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 910 ABA 1660.2026.odt 2 of 2