Nikhil Govind Abuj And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra
- Neutral2025:BHC-AUG:20468
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When an accused in an anticipatory bail application has complied with the conditions imposed in an earlier interim order, has joined the investigation without breach or evasion, and the prosecution cannot discharge its burden to prove a prima facie case against him with material evidence on record, anticipatory bail may be granted without requiring custodial interrogation, provided the accused's presence can be secured through other conditions and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation has been demonstrated. A statement recorded from a co-accused under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation cannot be used against another co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail proceedings to establish a case against that other accused. At the anticipatory bail stage, the court is concerned with the question of detention of the accused during investigation and not with testing the legality of the case instituted against him, and therefore cannot be required to grant custodial interrogation merely because the prosecution asserts it is necessary when the accused has shown willingness to cooperate and no material suggests he has evaded or obstructed the investigation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
*1* 917aba540o25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2025 NIKHIL GOVIND ABUJ AND VILAS ASHRUBA GHUGE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Shri Kulkarni Suvidh S., Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A.V. Lavte, APP for the Respondents/State. ...
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 01 August 2025
P. C. :-
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The Applicants were initially protected by the order
dated 15 April 2025 by imposing certain terms and conditions on
the Applicants in paragraph 4 of the order. Thereafter, subsequent
orders have been passed by this Court dated 18 July 2025 and 25
July 2025 continuing the interim protection in favour of the
Applicants.
3. From the submissions made by the prosecution, it
appears that the Applicants have complied with the terms and *2* 917aba540o25
conditions set out in the order dated 15 April 2025. Apparently
there is no breach of the said order. Thus, it can be inferred that
the present Applicants have joined the investigation. As far as
prima facie case is concerned, there is nothing brought on record
by the prosecution against the Applicants after the order dated 15
April 2025.
4. What is noteworthy is that by order dated 18 July
2025, the learned APP has specifically raised an issue with regard
to the JCB machine and submitted that it belongs to the
Applicants. As far as the Scorpio vehicle and Eicher Transport
vehicle are concerned, both have been recovered. In regard to the
JCB machine, the learned APP would now fairly state that the
issue of ownership of the JCB machine to the effect that it
belongs to the Applicants, has been revealed in the statement of
one of the co-accused persons during the course of investigation.
In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court dated 16 May 2025 in P. Krishna
Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh , in Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7532/2025, wherein, the
Honourable Supreme Court inter alia has observed that the *3* 917aba540o25
statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of investigation,
cannot be used against the another co-accused at the stage of
regular bail or anticipatory bail.
5. Be that as it may, the prosecution is not able to
discharge the burden in this regard as the law would mandate to
dislodge the claim of the Applicants that the JCB machine does
not belong to them. The learned APP has expressed that for such
purpose, custodial interrogation of the Applicants would be
necessary. However, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court dated 06 March 2024 in Bijender
vs. State of Haryana in S.L.P. (Cri.) (S) No.1079/2024 wherein,
the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that whilst the
Court is concerned with detention of the accused at the
investigation stage, it is not testing the legality of the case
instituted against him in an Anticipatory Bail proceedings.
Similar observations have also been made in the case of Pradip
N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat, S.L.P. (Cri.) No.354/2019
wherein, it has been observed that when the accused has
expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and *4* 917aba540o25
no material has been placed before the Court to suggest that he
has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner, then, it
is well settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where
custodial interrogation may not be essential also when his
presence can be secured.
6. For such reasons, physical custody of the Applicants
does not seem to be necessary in the given factual complexion.
For the above reasons, in my view, the interim order dated 15
April 2025 stands confirmed and the following order would meet
the ends of justice:-
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection with C.R. No. 0031/2025 registered with Pimpalner Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 130, 177, 192 and 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Sections 3(5), 303(2) and 49 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge sheet. They are further directed to co-operate in *5* 917aba540o25
the investigation.
(iii) The Applicants shall furnish details of residential address and other contact details such as the mobile number etc. to the concerned Police Station. If there is any change in the contact details, the same shall be immediately informed to the concerned Police Station.
(iv) The Applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court subject to further orders / until filing of the charge-sheet.
(v) The Applicants shall not contact and/or influence the witness/es and/or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in
the above terms. However, it is made clear that the observations
made in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of
adjudication of this application.
kps ( ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. )
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free