MHCC020143892023

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.25 OF 2024

Chetan Suresh Kamble @ Banty
Resident of R.No.11, C-1, Rawli Camp,
Sardar Nagar No.4, Mukundrao
Ambedkar Road, Near Fire Station,
Sion, Mumbai 400 037. … Applicant

– Versus

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Wadala Police Station vide Cr. No.72/2023)… Respondent

Appearance :Advocate Abhishek Jha for the applicant.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 31/01/2024

ORDER

This is bail application by the accused u/sec.439 of The Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with C.R.No.72/2023 registered with Wadala Police Station, Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec.307, 326, 146, 147, 148, 149, 34, 114, 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

2.It is alleged by the applicant / accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is arrested on 22.04.2023.

He has undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed, charge-sheet is filed. There is no point in keeping accused behind bars. He is a permanent resident of his given address therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.

3.The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if accused is released on bail there are chances of flee from justice. If accused is
released on bail there are chances of threatening of prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

4.Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State.

5.I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed on record. The accused is facing trial for the offence punishable u/sec.307, 326, 146, 147, 148, 149, 34, 114, 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. All accused including the present applicant in furtherance of their common intention attacked the victim with deadly weapon. The injury certificate reads that there are three grievous injuries on the scalp, forehead and wrist of the victim. The applicant / accused Chetan Kamble attacked with sickle and injured Mandar. When Mandar tried to save himself by obstructing attack by his hand he sustained injury on his wrist.

6.From the facts on record it appears that the applicant / accused Chetan is one of the assailant in the crime. He was fully prepared for the said attack as he was carrying sickle in his hand and by means of sickle he attacked Mandar. In attempt to save himself Mandar sustained injury on his hand. The injury certificate show that injury on the wrist is grievous one. Therefore, there was active role of the applicant / accused. He was one of the attacker. He was fully prepared as he was with sickle in his hand. This fact itself shows the intention of the applicant for commission of crime.

7.The ld advocate for the applicant / accused relied upon the order of bail granted by the Hon’ble High Court to accused Akshay Kamble, Wasim Lala @ Moh Wasim Moulla Ali Renapure and Chotu Jaiswal. No parity can be claimed. In the orders of these accused, it was found that Akshay was not the actual assailant. He only waived the chopper in the air. In respect of Chotu Jaiswal there is observation that
he was motor cycle rider and not the actual assailant. In case of Wasim Lala Anticipatory Bail was granted observing that there was no overt act attributed to the said applicant. Whereas in the case before me the present applicant / accused Chetan Kamble is the actual assailant. He attacked the victim with deadly weapon like sickle. Therefore, the role attributed to the present applicant / accused is different from the role attributed to Akshay Kamble, Wasim Lala and Chotu Jaiswal. Therefore,
no parity can be claimed by the applicant / accused.

8.Considering the active role in the commission of crime by the applicant, considering the seriousness of the offence, the applicant / accused is not entitled to be released on bail. I am of the view that the
applicant / accused has criminal antecedents. If he is released on bail there will be tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, for this reason also he is not entitled for the bail. In the result I pass the
following order :

ORDER

Criminal Bail Application No.25 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Date : 31/01/2024 Dictated on : 31.01.2024 Transcribed on : 02.02.2024 Signed by HHJ on : 03.02.2024 ( RAJESH A. SASNE ) Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai. 5 B.A. 25/24 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.” 03/02/2024 5.40 p.m. UPLOAD DATE TIME
J.S. Chavan NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A Room No.) Sasne, Court Room No. 30. Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 31/01/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on 03/02/2024 ORDER uploaded on 03/02/2024