CNR No. MHNS010028772022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.710/2022.
( Sandeep Shantaram Adhole Vs. State )
This is first bail application moved by the applicant­
accused Sandeep Shantaram Adhole under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in
connection with CR No.9/2022 registered with Igatpuri Police
Station, Dist. Nashik for the offence U/s. 302,307, 452, 427, 143,
147,148,323,504,506 r.w.s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, section
4/25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(3) r.w.s.135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
2.

It is stated in the application that, the present
applicant­accused was arrested on 7.3.2022 and he was produced
before learned JMFC, Igatpuri on 8.3.2022 and was remanded to
Police custody and thereafter he is in Magisterial custody. It is also
stated that the name of applicant­accused is not mentioned in the
FIR and there is no whisper in the charge­sheet regarding the
presence of the applicant­accused. As well as there is no evidence
against the applicant­accused nor any weapons or article was
seized from him during investigation. Now charge­sheet is filed in
the court bearing RCC No.56/2022 and therefore, there is no need
to kept the applicant­accused behind bar. Applicant­accused is
agriculturist and ready to abide the conditions laid down by this
Court, these and other grounds set out in the application, prayed to
allow the application.
3.

Application is opposed by the State by filing report
Exh.4.
4.

Perused the record. Heard, both the parties.

5.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused Shri. A.I.

..2..

Deshmukh has submitted that the name of the applicant­accused is
not mentioned in the FIR as an assailant by the first informant. So
far as report filed by the police is concerned, it is also not
specifically pointing out any role against the applicant­accused.
Therefore, considering this fact, the applicant­accused may be
enlarged on bail on terms and condition laid down by this court.
6.

On the other hand, learned APP Shri. Suryvanshi has
submitted that the said incident had occurred on day time, 30 to 40
persons have collectively assaulted the son of first informant and
his friends and in the said incident one Rahul Ramesh Salve was
murdered and the son of first informant sustained serious injuries.
He further submitted that his name is mentioned in the CCTV
footage panchanama and his name is mentioned in statement of
Ravindra Pandharinath Bhagade under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The
present applicant­accused is involved in the crime.

Therefore,
prayed to reject the application.
7.

As per report of the police the role of the applicant­
accused is that he was seen in a CCTV footage and his name is
mentioned by the witness in his statement under section 164 of
Cr.P.C. Except this evidence there is nothing on record to attribute
any overt act against the applicant­accused. The charge­sheet is
filed in the court and matter is awaiting for committal and on
perusal of the charge­sheet except the above piece of evidence, the
prosecution did not produce any other evidence to connect the
present applicant­accused with the death of the victim in the
present case. He is not named in the FIR also and therefore,
considering the above circumstances the learned counsel Shri.
Deshmukh has rightly relied upon Abhijeet Rajendra Sawant Vs
Cri. Bail Application No.710/2022.
..3..

State of Maharashtra, 2017 CLU 896, in which the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court held that,
“Upon perusing the papers of investigation and upon
hearing the learned senior counsel, the applicant who was
hardly 18/19 years old at the time of incident, deserves to
be enlarged on bail. The active role is played only by the
father of the applicant. It cannot be said that the
exhortation has resulted into action and hence the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail”.
He further relied upon Suresh Krishnarao Pol Vs State of
Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3289, wherein it is held that,
“I have perused the case dairy. The First Information Report
shows that only Namdeo Nandardhane and Purushottam
were named. It appears that thereafter some more
statements were recorded. In so far as the present applicant
is concerned, there is no allegation that the present
applicant hit the deceased by any dangerous weapon.
Allegation is against Purushottam and Namdeo
Nandardhane about the actual assault. In view of this, the
applicant deserves to be released on anticipatory bail”.
8.

Thus, in view of above discussion, I am inclined to
grant the bail to present applicant­accused on certain conditions.
Hence, following order is passed.
ORDER
1.

Bail application No.710/2022 is hereby allowed.

2.

Applicant­accused Sandeep Shantaram Adhole in
connection with CR No.9/2022 registered with Igatpuri
Police Station, Dist. Nashik for the offence U/s.
302,307,452,427,143, 147, 148,323,504,506 r.w.s. 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, under section 4/25 of the Arms Act
and section 37(1)(3) r.w.s.135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, be released on bail on executing bond of Rs.30,000/­
with one or two sureties in like amount.

..4..

3.

He shall furnish his address proof aadhar card of his two
near relatives alongwith mobile numbers.

4.

He shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses
in any manner.

5.

He shall attend the Court on given dates.

6.

In the event of breach of any of the conditions, his bail
bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.

7.

Bail in lower court.

8.

Inform to concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date­ 20.06.2022
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV A
Date: 2022.06.21
15:15:35 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.