High Court

Legal Reasoning

951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD951 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1126 OF 2025MANISH PRAKASH KSHIRSAGARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Mr. R. G. Hange h/for Mr. Anirudh R. Hange, Advocate for ApplicantMr. R. S. Wani, APP for Respondent/State.…CORAM: SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE:20.09.2025PER COURT :- 1.Heard.2.This is an application for granting of regular bail underSection 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inconnection with Crime No.383 of 2024, registered at Peth Beed PoliceStation, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 109,191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(20, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BhartiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3.The informant averred in the report that on 19.06.2024 hisneighbour, Prasad Dhiwar, along with his friends Sunny Athawale,Manish Kshrisagar, Ganesh Mane and Yogesh Waghmare came to hishouse at around 10:00 p.m. During the visit, Sunny Athawale assaultedthe informant’s stomach with a Kukri/knife. The informant managed to 1 of 6 (( 2 ))951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025ward off the blow with his left hand, resulting in injury to that hand.Accordingly, the informant lodged a report against Sunny Athawale and theothers. The informant and his father were threatened by the accused bysaying that they would not allow them to live. Subsequently, SunnyAthawale and the others also filed a counter-report against the informant,his father and the informant’s cousin, Rahul Dongare. As a result, theinformant and his cousin were incarcerated for three and half months andwere released on bail on 27.11.2024.. The informant further averred that on 12.12.2024, at about 11.00p.m., he and his brother were sleeping in their room while their parents weresleeping in another room. On 13.12.2024, at about 02:00 a.m., the informantheard voice calling him to wake up, saying that his father, Akshay Athawalehad come. When he peeped through window, he saw Akshay Athawale,Sunny Athawale, Ashish Athawale and Manish Kshirsagar standing outside,each holding pistols in their hands. One Prasad, who was showing them theinformant’s room said that “today they will kill them”. The informantsuddenly closed the window and blocked the door with a Sofa. Thereafter,the applicant and other co-accused started firing at the door and window.During this, the informant heard that Akshay Athawale was saying that hewould kill at least two members of Dongare family today. The informantthen called his maternal uncle, Ashok Jawale and informed him about the 2 of 6 (( 3 ))951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025firing so that he could call the police. Upon hearing the gunshots, theinformant’s parents woke up and came out of their room. As soon as theystepped outside, Akshay Athawale said that although they were released onbail, he would not leave them. He then fired two to three rounds towards theinformant’s father, who fell down injured. At that moment, AshishAthawale broke the door of the room where the informant’s paternal aunt,Usha, was sleeping. Ashish pointed a pistol at her and demanded to knowwhere her son was, threatening to kill her otherwise. Hearing thecommotion from his parents’ room, the informant came out and saw hisfather lying in a pool of blood. After seeing the informant’s father injuredand bleeding, the accused ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter,the informant and others admitted his father to the hospital and lodged areport about the incident. 4.The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is a student. Nothing is seized at the instance of the applicant. Inthe statement of the informant recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.,it is not stated that the applicant was holding weapon at the time of theincident. In the earlier case, the informant was brutally assaulted by theapplicant, however, he was released on anticipatory bail. He submitted thatthe proposal was forwarded for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act,however, the said proposal was refused. It is submitted that the applicant 3 of 6 (( 4 ))951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025has roots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. The trialwill take a long period. It is lastly prayed to allow the application. 5.The learned advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State ofMaharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2001 and Special Leave Petition(Crl.) 3425 of 2000, decided on 16.03.2001, particularly paragraph No.2,which reads as under:“2.When we perused the details of the injury sustained by the victimwe too felt, initially, that High Court was justified in rejecting bail for theappellant Nonetheless we take into account the fact that the victim survivedand as on today there is no prospect of the offence being escalated to highercounts. We also take into account the fact that the appellant has been in jailfor nearly eight months by now. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtrasubmitted that in case this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail hemust be subjected to some stringent conditions, one of them being that theappellant shall not enter within the limits of village Kiwale. We, therefore,order the appellant to be released on bail on his executing a bond with twosolvent sureties for such amount as may be fixed by the Trial Court, He shallnot enter within the boundaries of the village Kiwale without permission fromthe Trial court until disposal of the case. This appeal is disposed of. Appealdisposed of.”He further relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court incase of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal AppealNo.153 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9207 of2019), decided on 24.01.2020, particularly paragraph No.7, which reads as 4 of 6 (( 5 ))951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025under:“7.On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for theparties. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, therehas been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the HighCourt in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in the case ofMahipal (supra) for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent inthe order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at theconclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind orthe reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of theevidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious andthere are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factorsby themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The HighCourt has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused VikramSingh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order hasbeen shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretionto be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court grantingbail. This appeal is dismissed.”6.The learned APP for the State strongly opposed the applicationand submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents and is involved ina serious crime. He further submitted that if the applicant is released onbail, there is possibility that he may pressurize the prosecution witnesses,tamper with the evidence and may even commit a similar offence again.There is evidence of eye-witnesses indicating the applicant’s involvement inthe alleged crime. Considering the serious nature of crime, it is lastlyprayed to reject the application.7.Perused the charge-sheet, particularly statements of witnesses. 5 of 6 (( 6 ))951 BA NO. 1126 OF 2025The accused Prasad and Omkar have been released on bail. However,considering the specific role attributed to the present applicant that he washolding a pistol in his hand and was present at the spot of the incident andthe fact that he has criminal antecedents, if he is released on bail, he maycommit a similar nature of crime again and pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses or tamper with the evidence. The applicant has previouslymisused the liberty granted to him by way of bail in earlier cases. It is well-settled principle that the facts of the case are decisive. Considering the factsand circumstances of this case, the case laws relied upon by the learnedadvocate for the applicant, viz Bhausaheb (Supra) and Prabhakar (supra)are not useful and applicable. The application deserves to be rejected.Accordingly, it is rejected. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 6 of 6