910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2505 OF 2026 Sushil Ankush Mane …Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Prashant Hagare a/w. Mr. Utkarsh R. Pondkule, for the Applicant. Mr. S.V. Walve, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Mrunal Bhide, Basavaraj Yadav for the First Informant. API Shrikant More, Kharadi Police Station Pune. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.: 1. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the Applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 243 of 2026 registered with Kharadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5(f), 5(l), 6, 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Page 1 of 4 17th September, 2026 910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC skt 2. However, Mr. Walve, learned APP states that the Applicant has already been released on bail by order dated 18th July 2026 passed by learned JMFC, Pune in Remand Report No. 243 of 2026, Police Station Kharadi, Pune as there is non-compliance of Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the relatives of the Applicant. Learned APP points out Paragraph 65 of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 1, which reads as under : “65. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an application for remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the Explanation for non-supply thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an application, the Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of 1 2026 (1) SCC 500 17th September, 2026 910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC skt submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.” (Emphasis added) 3. Mr. Walve, learned APP, submits that, in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 65 of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the State of Maharashtra has filed an application/report seeking permission to arrest the Applicant. Thus, according to him, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is, in fact, not necessary, as unless permission to arrest is granted by the learned JMFC, the Applicant cannot be arrested. 4. Mr. Hagare, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, points out the order dated 17th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3983 of 2026, whereby the said application came to be rejected. 5. However, as the Applicant has already been released on bail by the learned JMFC by order dated 18th July 2026 for non- compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, and an application 17th September, 2026 910 ABA-2505-2026.DOC skt seeking permission to arrest the Applicant has already been filed, there is no apprehension that the Applicant would be arrested unless and until such permission is granted by the learned JMFC. 6. Needless to observe that such permission will be granted only after adhering to the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. 7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 17th September, 2026