Bail Application No.1047/2024.
MHCC020065222024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 186 OF 2024.

Parag Arun Gohil
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Antop Hill Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.186/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Sharikh M. Khan for the Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Parag Arun Gohil being
accused in C.R.No.186/2024 registered with Antop Hill Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B of the
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1047/2024.
Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) alongwith
Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”). This is an application
preferred by the applicant/accused post filing of charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

As on 06.04.2024 at about 5.00 am to 5.45 am while the
informant’s son was at their home near Navtarun Naik Nagar, near
Antop hill church, behind Krishna hotel, Antop hill, Mumbai, some
unknown individual entered their house in order to kill him and
accordingly fired at informant’s son at his stomach and caused injury
and thus initially, the offence was registered under Sections ibid.
During the course of investigation certain accused person were put
under arrest. Accordingly the applicant is apprehended in the present
crime as he is acquainted with the main accused in the present crime.
It has revealed during the course of investigation, that the applicant
has provided the fire weapon to the informant as well as post
occurrence of the incident the said weapon was allegedly kept with
the applicant. The CDR and SDR are already obtained and they speak
in quantum. And also the prosecution has gathered the CCTV footage
and photographs pertaining to the presence of applicant and the
main accused in the hotel. Thus applicant has preferred this
application for grant of bail.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant states that, the applicant is
acquainted with the main accused and has handed over the Rs. 7
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1047/2024.
Lakhs asked by the main accused. It is also stated that the applicant
was never present at the spot of incident. Also that the FIR itself
states for the purchase of the weapon by the one Santaji Gaikwad
who committed suicide in the year 2021. Applicant is unaware of the
transactions of the main accused or the incident as such. Further, the
role of applicant is not defined in the FIR by the informant. Thus,
further incarceration is not necessitated. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, it is clearly established and located that,
the applicant/accused has supplied fire arms to the co-accused and
his involvement and connivance also is clearly located. Further, it
also has revealed that, the fire arms/weapon used by the co-accused
Vivek Shettiya was kept with the applicant/accused post occurrence
of incident.

It also has been categorically stated that, there are
financial transactions between the applicant and the co-accused. Ld.
Prosecutor further apprehends for abscondance, tampering of
evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld.
Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

The gravamen of indictment against the applicant/accused
is that, he has aided the co-accused with fire arms and finance and
thereafter, the co-accused executed the crime. It is pertinent that, the
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1047/2024.
applicant/accused has not denied for the acquaintance with the coaccused. On the contrary the applicant/accused vide ground (c) (d)
and (e) stated for such acquaintance with the co-accused and also
stated for tendering an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the main accused.
This ipso-facto dis-entitles the applicant/accused for any such relief
of enlargement on bail.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
himself has stated for such acquaintance with the co-accused
alongwith tendering of an amount of Rs.7 lakhs. In furtherance of
the same, he also stated that, the applicant/accused had handed over
such sum in the hotel to the main accused and he was aware that the
bag in which he carried money had nothing except money inside it.
It is pertinent that, this particular aspect is well corroborated in
prima-facie under the CCTV Footage gathered/obtained by the
prosecution.

Thus, it is necessary that, the presence of the
applicant/accused is required for the purposes of confrontation with
that of the co-accused, more especially when the applicant/accused
has admitted for his apparent role. This naturally requires custodial
interrogation, which is more elicitation oriented. Therefore, I do not
find this as a fit case for grant of bail. Investigation is at a nascent
stage and granting such relief will naturally derail the momentum of
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1047/2024.
investigation. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.1047/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 23.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.25
17:07:38 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 23.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 23.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 25.04.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1047/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
25.04.2024
05.07 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
23.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
25.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
25.04.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6