Amol Dattatray Lakhe vs State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AS:57704 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3373 OF 2025 ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Charles Nevis Fernandes ...Applicant KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.12.24 Versus 22:31:40 +0530 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Mr. Kushal Mor (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Tanvir Kazi & Apoorv Srivastava, for the Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Vishal Mahadev Dandge, Lashkar Police Station, Pune, present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 24 DECEMBER 2025 PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Kushal Mor, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the Respondent-

State of Maharashtra.

2. By the present Anticipatory Bail Application filed under

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

("BNSS"), the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection

with CR No.213 of 2018 registered with Lashkar Police Station,

Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of

Page 1 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 ::: 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985

("NDPS Act").

3. As per the prosecution case, Co-Accused - Natraj was found

in possession of 23 grams Cocaine and during investigation the

role of the Applicant is revealed that the Co-Accused received 31

grams Cocaine from the Applicant

4. It is required to be noted at this stage that the incident in

question is dated 10th October 2018. FIR is registered on 10th

October 2018. The Applicant left for South Africa on 13th October

2018 and as his VISA expired on 6th December 2021 he has

returned to India on 4th May 2023.

5. It is also required to note that the Applicant, in his

Anticipatory Bail Application, has stated on Page Nos.9 and 10 in

Clause (d), as follows :-

"d. Upon perusal of the chargesheet, it is seen that the officers of the Respondent conducted visits on two occasions on 12.10.2018 and 14.10.2018, (Page No.32, 48, 49 & 50 of the Chargesheet) to the address of the Applicant, i.e., Flat No.108, A Wing, Kohinoor Vayona Society, Behind Hotel Ginger, Ambedkar Chowk, Pimpri,

Page 2 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 ::: 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

Pune. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant was not residing at the given address, a fact duly affirmed by his Late father, Mr. Nevis Martin Fernandes, and his brother, Mr. Austin Nevis Fernandes, respectively. Except for the aforementioned visits, no further efforts have been made by the officers of the Respondent to notify or intimate the Applicant regarding the registration of the said offence in his name. Therefore, without following due procedure, the officers of the Respondent could not have declared the Applicant as an absconder in the chargesheet."

6. Thus, what the Applicant has stated that on 12th October

2018 and 14th October 2018 the Officers of the Respondent

conducted the visits to the address of the Applicant i.e. Flat

No.108, 'A' Wing, Kohinoor Vayona Society, Behind Hotel Ginger,

Ambedkar Chowk, Pimpri, Pune and that his father and brother

stated that the Applicant is not residing at the said address. It is

significant to note that the Applicant has given the same address in

this Anticipatory Bail Application as his residential address. Thus, it

is clear that a clear attempt has been made to mislead the Police

Officials.

7. It is further required to be noted that the learned Additional

Sessions Judge while rejecting the Anticipatory Bail Application,

has held that the Accused is declared as absconder and in fact look

out notice has also been issued against him.

Page 3 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 ::: 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of

Delhi)1, has held that if the Applicant is not available for

interrogation and investigation and was declared as absconder,

then normally when accused who is "absconding" shall not be

granted anticipatory bail. It has been held that if a person is

absconding or concealing himself, then he is not entitled to the

relief of anticipatory bail.

9. This is a case where the Applicant has been declared as

absconder and look out notice has also been issued against him.

10. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant that

the proper procedure has not been followed while declaring the

Applicant as absconder. However, the same is a separate issue.

What is important to note is that the Applicant was not available

for interrogation. This is a serious case where the office is under

the NDPS Act.

11. Although the Applicant is staying at the same premises

where the Applicant's father and brothers are staying, falsely it is

1 (2012) 8 SCC 730

Page 4 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 ::: 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

stated to the Police Officer who conducted the visits that the

Applicant is not staying in the said premises.

12. The Supreme Court in the decision of Nikita Jagganath

Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2, has

held that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought

not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong

reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a

person accused of grave offences.

13. The Supreme Court has further held in the case of State Rep.

By the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma 3 that the custodial interrogation is

qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect

who has been granted favourable order under Section 438 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (i.e. Section 482 of BNSS). It has

been held that, in serious crime for effective interrogation of a

suspected person custodial interrogation is necessary.

14. This is a case where the offence is under the NDPS Act. The

Applicant has already been declared as absconder. In fact, the look

out notice is issued against him.

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489 3 (1997) 7 SCC 187

Page 5 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 ::: 608-ABA-3373-2025.DOC

15. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 6 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2025 20:35:00 :::