ABA/2014/2026 of PADMAKAR NARHARI TANDULKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2014 OF 2026

Padmakar Narhari Tandulkar

…Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

…Respondent

Mr. Shubham Kadam a/w Yash Kamble & Harshvardhan Patil, for the Applicant.

Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED:

15 OCTOBER 2026

PC:-

1.

Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Ghag, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

2.

By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.337 of 2026

registered with Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 274 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(e) and 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Arjun

624-ABA-2014-2026.DOC

3.

It is the main contention raised by Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, that except the offence under Section 123 of BNS, all other offences are bailable offences. He submits that as far as Section 123 of BNS is concerned, the Supreme Court is considering the applicability of Section 123 of BNS (i.e. Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) to the similar cases. He, therefore, states that the Applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, Mr. Ghag, learned APP, for the Respondent-State, strongly opposes the Anticipatory Bail Application. He submits that the offence is very serious and, therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

5.

Mr. Ghag, learned APP, submits that, if this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, then the Applicant be directed to give an undertaking in terms of the Order of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage v. State of Maharashtra1 and more particularly relies on following condition imposed by the Supreme Court in case of similar offences:

SLP (Crl.) Diary No.2806/2023

Arjun

624-ABA-2014-2026.DOC

“It is deemed appropriate to impose the condition – “I, Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage do undertake to not deal with Gutkha, that is, Pan Masala with Tobacco”. In case, the appellant – Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage violates the terms and conditions of bail, including the undertaking imposed, it would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail .”

(Emphasis added)

6.

Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, states that the Applicant has given such undertaking and the same is annexed at Page 45 of the Anticipatory Bail Application. The said undertaking reads as under:

Arjun

624-ABA-2014-2026.DOC

7.

The Supreme Court in the said Order has imposed the above condition in case of similar offence.

8.

Perusal of the record shows that except the offence under Section 123 of BNS, the other offences are bailable offences. The issue whether Section 123 of BNS will apply to similar cases is

Arjun

624-ABA-2014-2026.DOC

pending before the Supreme Court. As the Applicant is ready to give the undertaking that he will not deal with Gutkha and Tobacco products in any manner whatsoever, the case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. However, as there is one antecedent, it is necessary to impose stringent conditions on the Applicant.

9.

In view thereof, the following order is passed: