CNR No. MHNS010034572022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 844/2022.
( Shatrughna Gyandeo Bhagde and another Vs. State )
This application is moved by the applicants­accused
Shatrunghna Gyandeo Bhagde and Gorakhnath Nivrutti Rakshe
under section 438 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, under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and section
37(1)(3) r.w.s.135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, in the event of
their arrest in the above mentioned crime.
2.

It is stated in the application that, the names of the
applicants­accused are falsely involved in the crime as they are
residents of village Nandgaon Sado. They have not committed any
offence and they were on duty at the time of incident at Central
Railway, Igatpuri in signal and Telecom Depo Department as a
Khalasi, but Igatpuri police without inquiry falsely involved them in
present crime. In this offence the investigation is completed and
the charge­sheet is filed in the court bearing RCC No.56/2022. It is
further stated that, there is nothing remain to seize from them,
these and other grounds set out in the application, prayed to allow
the application.
3.

Application is opposed by the State by filing report vide
Exh.5.
4.

Perused the record. Heard, both the parties.

5.

The learned counsel for applicants­accused Shri.

Deshmukh has submitted that the name of the applicants­accused
are not mentioned in the FIR as an assailant by the first informant.

..2..

So far as report filed by the police is concerned, it is also not
specifically pointing out any role against the applicants­accused
and their antecedents are clean. They are Central Railways
employees and on the day of incident they were present on their
duty. Therefore, considering this fact, the applicants­accused may
be enlarge on bail on terms and condition laid down by this court.
6.

On the other hand, learned APP Shri. Suryawanshi 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 applicants­accused are identified in the
CCTV footage and the name of Shtrughna Bagade is mentioned in
the statement of witness by name Ravindra Pandharinath Bhagade
recorded u/sec. 164 of Cr.P.c. and both the applicants­accused
were identified in CCTV camera as a members of unlawful
assembly. There is sufficient evidence against the applicants­
accused to connect with the present crime. Therefore, prayed to
reject the application.
7.

I.O. is present with case papers.

8.

On perusal of the charge­sheet, it appears that the
applicants­accused are identified in the CCTV footage and were
shown as an members or unlawful assembly. One witness Ravindra
Bhagade has named applicant­accused No.1 Shatrughna Bagade in
his statement recorded U/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. and both the
applicants­accused identified in CCTV footage. Though the learned
counsel Shri. Deshmukh produced on record documents to show
Cri. Bail Application No.844/2022.
..3..

that on the day of incident these applicants­accused were on duty
as a Central Railway employees, however, I.O. submitted that the
distance between the spot of incident and the Railway Station is
One and half kilometer. The presence of applicants­accused in
CCTV footage shows that they had joined the unlawful assembly.
The learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh has relied upon
Abhijeet
Rajendra Sawant Vs 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”.
However, those case laws are not helpful to the applicants­accused
in the case in hand, as they are Central Railway’s employees and on
the day of incident allegedly they were on duty and inspite of this
they had joined the unlawful assembly and the heinous murder
was committed by the members of unlawful assembly and they
..4..

have also created terror in the area and also damaged the vehicles
and other private properties. Therefore, considering the seriousness
of the matter, the present application is devoid of merit. The
custodial interrogation of the applicants­accused is necessary as
one of the applicant­accused is shown as holding weapon in his
hand and hence, the recovery of the said weapon is required and
therefore, custodial interrogation of these applicants­accused is
necessary. Hence, following order is passed.
ORDER
1.
2.

Anticipatory Bail application No.844/2022 is hereby
rejected.
Inform to concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date­ 13.07.2022
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV A
Date: 2022.07.13
18:17:38 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.