Bail Application No.1654/2022.
MHCC020090292022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1654 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. NO. 609 OF 2022.
Pratik Vijay Jadhav
… Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of Nirmal Nagar police
station vide CR No. 609/2022.)
…Respondents
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Prashant Gurav for the Applicant/accused.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ravi Dwivedi for Intervener.
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 : 22ND JULY, 2022.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Pratik Vijay Jadhav being
accused in C.R.No. 609/2022 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 326, 324,
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1654/2022.
323, 504, 506, 506(2) and 141, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
Informant Derik Maridas is an office boy who works with
one Hari Shastri. It is further stated that Hari Shastri is secretary of
Maharashtra Kamgar Sena. As on 1 st of June 2022 at about 12:30 PM,
while the informant was standing outside his office with certain other
individuals one Bunty alias Ratnadeep and Anil Dhilod arrived at the
shop opposite to the said office where the informant works. By making
certain gestures the said Bunty threatened the informant and
accordingly the informant lodged a complaint against him. Thereafter,
at about 16:30 hours, informant and certain other individuals
accompanying him when to MHB colony, Khernagar, Bandra East.
Certain individuals including Dinesh Kadam, Machhindra Jadhav, and
Suresh Nishad were present at the site wherein one Santosh Achrekar
arrived there and asked Rajveer about the threatening he advanced to
Bunty. In the meantime Bunty and certain other individuals including
the Applicant/accused came at the spot and had altercations with the
informant and his colleagues. Thereafter, Bunty brought iron spatula
and assaulted the head of the victim by iron spatula and wooden plate.
Upon this Rajveer fell down and other individuals that is Dinesh Kadam,
Suresh Nishad etc came to rescue Rajveer. It is further stated that the
Applicant accused and Deven had beat the informant and others by a
stone block qua paver block. On account of this ambush, people ran
helterskelter. Informant and his colleagues were thereafter hospitalized
at VN Desai Hospital. As Rajveer and Manoj where seriously injured the
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1654/2022.
informant
lodged
report
against
the
accused,
including
the
Applicant/accused. Accordingly, offence was registered and the accused
were put under arrest.
3.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused falsely implicated and has nothing to do with the
crime.
It is further stated that, there is no recovery of any such
incriminating articles from the Applicant/accused. They alleged injured
are already discharged from the hospital. Certain other accused are also
enlarged on bail and therefore the Applicant/accused claims for parity.
Thus, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of
the applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Per contra the Prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the role of the applicant/accused is clearly
established during the course of investigation. It is further stated that,
the sleuth of Nirmal Nagar police station, are in receipt of the CCTV
footage collected from the spot and on its perusal it is evident that, the
Applicant/accused have assaulted the injured with the help of a wooden
bamboo. The prosecution further apprehends abscondance, threatening
a prosecution witness and tampering of prosecution evidence, if the
Applicant/accused is enlarged on bail. Hence, Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
5.
Ld. Advocate for intervener has submitted in consonance
with the arguments of the Ld. Prosecutor and has also prayed for
rejection of application.
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1654/2022.
5.
Heard Ld. Advocate for Applicant/accused, Ld. Advocate
for Intervener and learned prosecutor for the state. Perused application
and reply.
6.
The sleuth of Nirmal Nagar police station was called upon
for the CCTV footage, and accordingly it was minutely perused by
myself. Learned prosecutor has pointed out the Applicant/accused in
the said footage and it can be clearly seen that the Applicant/accused
has hit the victim with a wooden bamboo for nearly 4 times using all his
force while holding the said wooden bamboo with both the hands and
thereafter he walks out from the spot. Therefore, apparently the role of
Applicant/accused can be clearly identified. A mere wear and tear qua
an ambush can be a reason for consideration of such enlargement on
bail but considering the role of the Applicant/accused, his animus can
be well ascertained, as for 4 times he had hit the victim by using all his
force which is well evident from the CCTV footage. Although, the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused has stated that, there is an absolute
parity with that of the coaccused who are already enlarged on bail by
the learned predecessor in office, considering the said contention in
majority of such cases, the learned predecessor of this court were of the
opinion that there is no active participation of the concerned accused
pertaining to the section as invoked against them. Considering the
instant case, as stated herein above the Applicant/accused is clearly
seen to have hit the victim 4 times and therefore this clearly propel for
his active involvement. This ipsofacto disentitles the Applicant/accused
from any such relief of enlargement on bail.
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1654/2022.
7.
While deciding an application for bail it is settled that the
Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or not. It is
not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits of
prosecution case. Therefore, considering the case in hand as stated
hereinabove as the role of the applicant/accused is apparently
established, I do not find this as a fit case for granting of relief of
enlargement on bail. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that,
the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1654/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 22.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.26
17:46:53 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 22.07.2022
Transcribed on : 25.07.2022
HHJ signed on : 26.07.2022
Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1654/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
26.07.2022
05.45 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
22.07.2022
of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
26.07.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
26.07.2022
Page 6 of 6