..1..

Order Below Exh. 1 in Bail Appln. No. 662/2022
(CNR NO.MHNS010025652022)
Vishal Ramavatar Yadav (Accused No. 4) Vs. State.
Heard : Ld. Adv. Mr. P. R. Gandhi & Ms. R. S. Parwani
for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. R. Y. Jadhav for the State.
I. O. present.

1.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in Crime No.198/2021 registered at Police Station,
Satpur, Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 412 and
427 r./w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the case of
prosecution in brief that the accused persons broke open a studio of
statues and mantels at 2.30 a.m. after assaulting the watchman (of the
studio) and his wife and stole a veena, a sword and bronze mantels of
Shivaji Maharaj and Saint Tukaram. Thereafter, they transported the
stolen goods in a vehicle and sold them to a scrap­dealer.
2.

Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that investigation is
over and charge­sheet has been filed. Another co­accused has been
released on bail by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Applicant is ready
to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court.
3.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that there is prima­facie case against the
applicant. When the bail application of the co­accused was decided by
the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the CCTV footage of crime scene was
..2..

not made available and therefore not viewed by the Court. Applicant
can be seen in the CCTV footage. Accused Vishal Yadav can be seen
more clearly than others. He can also be seen making a phone call for
calling the vehicle and thereafter breaking the camera of the CCTV.
The stolen goods have been recovered. Some of the co­accused are still
absconding. Call records of accused persons not only show their
involvement in the offence, but also their presence on the spot. If the
applicant is released on bail, there are chances of his tampering with
prosecution witnesses and committing similar offences.
4.

Perusal of the charge­sheet reveals prima­facie case
against the applicant. Offence is serious in nature. The stolen goods
have been recovered. Some of the co­accused are still absconding. Call
records of accused persons not only show the involvement of the
accused persons in the offence, but also their presence on the spot.
Admittedly, the CCTV footage was not viewed by the Ld. Predecessor
of this Court while deciding the application for bail. I have viewed the
said CCTV footage brought by the I. O. in open Court. I. O. has pointed
out the applicant to the said footage. Therefore, principle of parity will
not be applicable. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to
reject the application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
13/06/2022
Digitally
signed by
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.06.13
11:44:14
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge­3 and
Addl. Sessions Judge Nashik.