Praveen Manik Kadam vs State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AS:45444 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1495 OF 2025 signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL Praveen Manik Kadam ...Applicant VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: Versus 2025.10.16 21:41:22 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent +0530

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Indrayanee Pandit i/b Samay Pawar, for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Mahesh Vaswani a/w Shreya Tiwari i/b Mikdad Zummerwala, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 15 OCTOBER 2025 PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant, Mr. Metkari, learned APP for the Respondent-State of

Maharashtra and Mr. Vaswani, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2.

2. By this 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.56 of

2025 registered with the Lonavala City Police Station, District-Pune

Rural, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 69,

Page 1 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

318(4), 3(5), 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.3 of the

Order dated 10th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Vadgaon Maval, District-Pune in Criminal Bail

Application No.69 of 2025 rejecting the Application filed by the

Applicant, which reads as under :-

"3. The prosecution story is that, on 04/09/2024 to 05/09/2024 and in between 15/09/2024 till 20/09/2024 at Citrus Hotel, Lonavala and at Shrinagar, Pahlagam by giving promise of marriage applicant/accused Praveen Manik Kadam forcefully established sexual relations and unnatural relations with informant from time to time. It is also alleged that informant was subjected to ill-treatment and the accused also forced her to transfer the amount. It is also alleged that applicant/accused Hrishikesh Manik Kadam has helped the applicant/accused Praveen Manik Kadam from time to time and he also asked the informant to made expenses for court cases of applicant/accused Praveen and assured to refund the amount, but he had not refunded the amount to her. The informant came to know that accused persons in conspiracy with each other have cheated her and applicant/accused Praveen had established physical relationship under the false promise of marriage despite he was married. Hence, she proceeded to lodge the complaint against the accused persons. On the basis of such allegations, the impugned offence came to be registered against the applicants/accused. Hence, they have apprehension that,

Page 2 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

they may be arrested by police. As such they have preferred the present bail application."

4. At the outset, Mr. Metkari, learned APP submits that the

offence is very serious. Apart from that, he states that proclamation

has been issued under Section 84 of the BNSS and the Applicant is

absconding. Therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be not

entertained.

5. Mr. Vaswani, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent

No.2 also raises the similar contentions and relies on the decision

of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj 1.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for

the Applicant points out the decision of the Supreme Court in Asha

Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2 and submits that in spite of the

issuance of proclamation, the Anticipatory Bail Application can be

entertained. He submits that the Applicant is not involved in the

crime and therefore the Application be granted.

1 (2023) 17 SCC 510 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633

Page 3 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

7. The Supreme Court in the decision of Lavesh v. State (NCT

3 of Delhi) , has held that normally when the Accused is

"absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no

question of granting anticipatory bail. It has been reiterated that

when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is

absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of

warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section

82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he is not entitled to

the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. The Supreme Court reiterated the said position in the

decision of Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra 4, wherein it has been

held that any person, who is declared as an "absconder" and

remains out of the reach of the investigating agency and thereby

stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no

concession or indulgence.

9. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj (supra)

reiterated the said position and in fact set aside the Order passed

by the High Court granting anticipatory bail.

3 (2012) 8 SCC 730 4 (2022) 8 SCC 282

Page 4 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

10. The said position is again reiterated by the Supreme Court in

the decision of Shrikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 5, wherein it

has been specifically held that when warrant of arrest or

proclamation is issued, the Applicant is not entitled to invoke the

extraordinary power. However, it has been clarified that this will

not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in

extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

11. The decision on which Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing

for the Applicant heavily relied i.e. Asha Dubey (supra), the

Appellant before the Supreme Court in the said case is the mother-

in-law of the deceased. The son of the Appellant was arrested and

he was in custody. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the

Supreme Court has observed that custodial interrogation of the

said Appellant is not required. The Supreme Court has also held

that, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.,

it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on

considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail and

the Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of

5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282

Page 5 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

the offence and the background based on which such a

proclamation was issued.

12. As per the prosecution case, by giving promise of marriage

applicant/accused Praveen Manik Kadam forcefully established

sexual relations and unnatural relations with informant from time

to time. It is also alleged that informant was subjected to ill-

treatment and the accused also forced her to transfer various

amounts from time to time. The informant came to know that

accused persons in conspiracy with each other have cheated her

and applicant/accused Praveen had established physical

relationship under the false promise of marriage despite he was

married. Thus, the allegations against the Applicant are very

serious.

13. The Supreme Court in the decision of Nikita Jagganath

Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 6, 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

6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489

Page 6 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 ::: 06-ABA-1495-2025.DOC

person accused of grave offences. It has been further held that as

the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in

serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper

the investigation as it may sometimes lead to tampering or

distraction of the evidence.

14. Considering the facts of this case and the above parameters,

no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

15. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 7 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2025 21:13:26 :::