High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
BA.593.2025-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 593 OF 2025Tikaji @ Bala @ Vinod S/o. Madhukar Sawale, Age : 28 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. : Dhanora – Makta, Taluka Loha, Dist. Nanded,At present Madhuban, Dhanegaon, Nanded, Taluka & District Nanded.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Police Sub Inspector, Rural Police Station Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded.… Respondent…..Mr. A. B. Kharosekar, Advocate for Applicant.Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent – State.…..WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2025Vikas S/o. Chandrakant Kamble, Age : Major, Occu. : Labour, R/o. CIDCO, Balirampur, NandedTq. & Dist. Nanded.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Nanded Rural Police Station, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… Respondent.…..Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Applicant.Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent – State.…..WITH
Legal Reasoning
BA.593.2025-2-BAIL APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2025Kiran Suresh More, Age : 28 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Nagar, Dhanegaon, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… Applicant VersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Nanded Rural Police Station, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… Respondent.…..Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Applicant.Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent – State.…..WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO.1569 OF 2024Lahuji @ Avdhut Gangadhar Dasarwad, Age : 26 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Balirampur, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Nanded Gramin, Dist. Nanded.… Respondent…..Mr. S. R. Bagal h/f. Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Applicant.Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent – State.…..WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2025Harshvardhan S/o. Subhash Lohkar, Age : 35 years, Occu. : Labour, BA.593.2025-3-R/o. Balirampur, CIDCO, Nanded, Taluka & District Nanded.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through It’s Police Sub Inspector,Rural Police Station, Nanded,Taluka and District Nanded.… Respondent…..Mr. A. B. Kharosekar, Advocate for Applicant.Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent – State.Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for informant (Assist to APP) in all matters.…..CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :24 APRIL 2025PRONOUNCED ON :28 APRIL 2025 ORDER : 1.All above applicants, who are arrested in one and thesame crime bearing No.122 of 2023 for offence punishable undersections 302, 386, 323, 120(B), 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IndianPenal Code and under sections 3/25, 4/25 and 27 of the Arms Actand under sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MaharashtraControl of Organised Crime Act (MCOC Act) and under section 135 ofthe Maharashtra Police Act, are seeking their enlargement on bail onaccount of their arrest.2.Arguments made by Advocate Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkarare to larger extent adopted by each of the respective counsel inabove applications, except adding their distinct roles attributed to BA.593.2025-4-them. That, the common points urged are that primarily there is nodirect evidence. That, very informant, who claims herself to be an eyewitness, reported at the time of MLC that, her son Raj was assaultedby unknown persons. Later on, by fabricating new version, applicantsare named to be assailants. That, false implication was due toprevious enmity. That, there are allegations that deceased wasencircled and assaulted by nine persons. That, there was no motivewith applicants to assault. That, applicants are behind bars since25.02.2023. That, investigation is over and charge sheets have beenfiled against each of them. That, neither charge has been framed nottrial has commenced. That, there is uncertainty over conclusion oftrial and as applicants cannot be behind bar indefinitely, all learnedcounsel urged for grant of bail on any conditions deemed fit by thiscourt. Orders passed by this court (Principal Seat) in CriminalBail Application No. 2816 of 2019, Bail Application No.3804 of 2021and Bail Application No.3778 of 2024 are also taken recourse to andrelied in support of the relief.3.Learned APP would point out that serious and brutalmurder has been committed. That, deceased and his brother had notcomplied to the demand of extortion. Thus, there was motive. That,brutal murder has been committed in a planned manner. That, BA.593.2025-5-conspiracy was hatched and after keeping surveillance on informantand deceased, deceased was alone assaulted by means of firearm andsharp deadly weapon like Khanjar. Therefore, offence like undersections 302, 386, 120(B) and 149 of IPC have been invoked.Learned APP took this court through the FIR, statements ofwitnesses to whom she claimed to be direct eye witness being presentwith the informant as well as deceased. Learned APP also took thiscourt through the P.M. report and opinion of cause of death. LearnedAPP pointed out that, the manner of assault does not call for relief ofbail and she expresses possibility of commencement of trial in nearfuture. 4.Learned counsel for informant also strongly opposed bypointing out that, MLC has no much significance. He pointed out that,it needs to be borne in mind that mother has an eye witness of brutalmurder of her son. Her mindset at that juncture was very differentand it was not possible to give details, while her son had sufferedgrievous and fatal injuries including gunshot injuries. He too pointedout that each of the applicants have played active role. That, theywere all armed with deadly weapons. That, applicant of BailApplication No.593 of 2025 used pistol and fired on the neck ofdeceased. With such allegations, he too strongly opposes the relief ofbail. BA.593.2025-6-5.Perused the FIR at the instance of Kesharbai. Shereported that, 6 to 7 months back, her acquaintance Bala @ Vinod @Ukaji Madhukar Savale and his friends had demanded her vehicle toenable them to attend the marriage, but she has refused andtherefore getting annoyed, it is alleged that, her four wheeler vehiclewas damaged of which report was lodged at police station. Precisely,to pressurize her to withdraw the case, it is alleged that, threats tokill were issued and those persons were after her son and had alsoissued threats to not spare them alive. Attempts were made inSeptember 2022 to catch her son Mukesh, but he managed to escape.She reported that, she got call from Balu @ Vinod, saying that, herson has managed to survive, but he would see later on. She furtherclaimed that on 25.02.2023, around 8.00 to 8.15 p.m., she herself,her deceased son Raj, son-in-law Vijay and Vishal were proceeding topay visit to the house construction site. That time, her son Rajalighted from the vehicle to obtain photocopies of documents. Thattime, she claims to have heard huge noise and claims to have seenassault being carried out on her son Raj by Balya @ Vinod, who wasarmed with firearm, Kiran Suresh More, Harshavardhan SubhashLohekar, Kundan Sanjay Landage, Lahuji @ Avdhut GangadharDasarwad, Vikas Kambale by means of Khanjar and Balya @ Vinodwas directing other not to spare him alive. She also claims that she BA.593.2025-7-saw gunshot being fired at the neck by Balya and others assaulted onchest and abdomen on her son and assailants fleeing thereafter. Thather son being taken to hospital and declared dead.6.Learned counsel for all applicants invited attention ofthis court to the MLC and would submit that, in the hospital it wasreported that assault was by unknown persons. On visiting the same,it does emerge that, at hospital report was given about assault byunknown three persons. However, though learned counsels pointedout that it was at the instance of mother, such specific name ofinformant is not appearing therein. Even otherwise as submitted bylearned APP as well as learned counsel for informant, mere referencein paper like MLC cannot be taken into account to draw any inferencethat too at this stage. Here, apart from information by mother, whowas accompanying her deceased son, there are statements of SantoshUbale and Vijay her son-in-law and they too have reiterated what hestated by informant.7.There are allegations of use of firearm, weapons likeKhanjar by nine persons for assaulting a single person that too byallegedly encircling him, both preventing attempt to save or toprevent escape. P.M. report shows that deceased, who was broughtdead and suffered as many as 10 injuries and cause of death is due to BA.593.2025-8-“Hemorrhagic shock due to firearm injury to the neck and stabinjuries to the abdomen”. Taking into account the above material,severity of the crime, initial threats issued for non compliance ofdemand of extortion, life threat shown to be executed, though chargesheet is filed, this court is not inclined to grant bail as prayed. 8.All bail applications are rejected. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale