SOFTMATE SYSTEM LLP AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/606/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED on 24th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM030142872026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

ABA/3570/2026

Filing Date

09-04-2026

Registration No

ABA/606/2026

Registration Date

09-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Amended 2008) Section 66(C),66(D)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4)

Petitioner(s)

SOFTMATE SYSTEM LLP AND OTHERS

Adv. More Kumar Gaurav M.

MANDAR PRADIP PATRIKAR PARTNER OF SOFTMATE SYSTEM LLP

SHAILA KEDAR PARTNER OF SOFTMATE SYSTEM LLP

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

17-04-2026

ANTICIPATORY BAIL - FIRST TIME

24-04-2026

Orders

24-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed Softmate System LLP and its partners' anticipatory bail applications, finding the Sessions Court's rejection was based on an erroneous legal position. The Sessions Judge had wrongly held that Section 81 of the Information Technology Act has overriding effect, making bail applications unmaintainable; the High Court clarified that dishonest access to computer systems for personal gain falls under IPC Sections 406/408/409, not just IT Act Section 72, and remitted the matter for fresh merit-based consideration with 7 days interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed Softmate System LLP and its partners' anticipatory bail applications, finding the Sessions Court's rejection was based on an erroneous legal position. The Sessions Judge had wrongly held that Section 81 of the Information Technology Act has overriding effect, making bail applications unmaintainable; the High Court clarified that dishonest access to computer systems for personal gain falls under IPC Sections 406/408/409, not just IT Act Section 72, and remitted the matter for fresh merit-based consideration with 7 days interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case