1
B.A. 400/24
MHCC020027472024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.400 OF 2024
Amarendra Mishra
Aged 44 years, Occ – Security Guard,
Residing at C/101, Janki Heights,
Opp. Mithalal Jain Bungalow,
Mira Road, Bhayander (East),Dist. Thane
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of DCB CID, Unit-XI,
vide Cr. No.12/2024)
Mrs. Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar
Age 35 years, Residing at 701,
Audumbar Building, Daulat Nagar,
Borivali (E), Mumbai
… Applicant
… Respondent
… Intervener
Appearance :Adv. Sandeep P. Dubey for the applicant.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State
Adv. Dr. Bhushan V. Mahadik for the intervenor.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 05/03/2024
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of The
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
C.R.No.12/2024 registered with DCB CID, Unit-XI, Mumbai for the
commission of offences punishable u/sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 3,25,29(b),30 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1), (A), r/w 135
of the Maharashtra Police Act.

2
2.

B.A. 400/24
It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 09.02.2024. The applicant / accused submits that the entire
episode of the incident had been happened live which had been seen by
many people and it is clearly seen that deceased Maurice Naronha had
fired on deceased Abhishek Ghosalkar and afterwards he shots himself,
whatever had been happen it was between both the deceased persons.
The applicant was working as bodyguard of deceased Maurice Naronha.
He used to kept his license gun in locker provided by deceased Maurice
Naronha. He had been arrested as weapon used in the crime was
registered in his name. He has undergone custodial interrogation. The
investigation is completed. The applicant is the only earning member in
the family. There is no point in keeping the accused behind bars till
conclusion of trial. He is the permanent resident of his given address
therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is
released on bail there are chances that he may flee away from justice. If
the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of
prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence,
prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.
4.

The intervenor also opposed the application vide Exh.3.

5.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution and the
intervenor. Read the written argument filed by the intervenor. Heard the
ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State and
Ld. Advocate for the intervenor.

3
6.

B.A. 400/24
It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.02.2024 at about
7.00 p.m. one Maurice Naronha invited deceased Abhishek Ghosalkar at
his office at Dahisar (West), Mumbai. There was previous enmity
between them. When said Abhishek Ghosalkar came to the office of
Maurice Naronha, both came on facebook live to show that they have
resolved their dispute and will jointly work for the community. At that
time when the live streaming was going on facebook live, said Maurice
Naronha fired pistol and killed Abhishek Ghosalkar. Five gun shots were
rang out. The informant is one of the person standing outside the office
of Maurice Naronha. By hearing the sound of the gun shot, the
informant went there and found that Abhishek is lying in the pool of
blood. The informant went to inform about the incident. Afterwards
said Maurice Naronha immediately after murder of Abhishek killed
himself. It is the allegation of the prosecution that said Maurice
Naronha has used the gun which belongs to the applicant. It is the
contention of the prosecution that there was criminal conspiracy
between Maurice Naronha and the applicant to kill Abhishek Ghosalkar.
It is alleged that the applicant has provided the gun of which license is
in his name. There was pre-plan to kill Abhishek and therefore, the
present applicant has been arrested in the present crime.
7.

It is the contention of the applicant that the FIR does not
disclose incriminating material against him. It is further contention of
the applicant that at the most offences under the Arms Act, 1953 will be
applicable against the applicant. Whereas according to the intervenor
and the prosecution the murder of Abhishek Ghosalkar was pre-planed
murder. The applicant who is actually resident of U.P. recently came to
reside in Mumbai. He alongwith Maurice Naronha recently purchased
bullets for the use of gun. At the time of murder of Abhishek, the gun
4
B.A. 400/24
was handed over by the applicant to Maurice Naronha. The prosecution
is investigating the fact of alleged conspiracy.
8.

From the record prima facie it appears that Maurice
Naronha by firing gun killed Abhishek Ghosalkar. The gun used to kill
was of the applicant. The applicant has provided the copy of license of
said gun which is in his name. According to the applicant he used to
keep the firm arm gun in the locker which was provided by the
deceased Maurice Naronha to him. Therefore, it appears that if the gun
was kept in the locker, then key of the locker must be with the
applicant. It is not the case that locker was broken by Maurice Naronha.
Therefore, necessarily facts prima facie show that access to the gun was
provided by the applicant. There is substance in the contention of the
prosecution that gun must have been handed over by the applicant to
Maurice Naronha.
9.

From the record it can be seen that Maurice Naronha and
the applicant together have purchased bullets for the use of the gun.
The applicant was bodyguard of deceased Maurice Naronha. He is
resident of U.P. He was recently appointed as bodyguard of Maurice
Naronha. There was previous enmity between Maurice Naronha and
Abhishek Ghosalkar. On the day of incident Maurice Naronha invited
Abhishek Ghosalkar to his office and later on said Maurice Naronha
killed Abhishek Ghosalkar. The gun in the incident is owned by the
applicant. The applicant had knowledge about the fact that Maurice
Naronha had called Abhishek Ghosalkar at his office. He was also
knowing the fact that his gun is not with him, though he is bodyguard
of Maurice Naronha. There was previous enmity between Maurice
Naronha and Abhishek Ghosalkar. All these circumstances are material
5
B.A. 400/24
and are required to be considered to verify the role of the applicant.
The allegations levelled against the applicant appears to be reasonable
to consider that the applicant must have some role in the crime. The
fact is required to be investigated whether the applicant by providing
the gun to Maurice Naronha was in criminal conspiracy to kill Abhishek
Ghosalkar. The applicant has been arrested on 09.02.2024. The
investigation against the applicant is in progress. The opportunity and
fair chance is required to be given to the prosecution to investigate the
case in detail. The allegation that the applicant has provided the gun
used to kill Abhishek Ghosalkar is required to be investigated. The
applicant is the only person who can explain the circumstances.
Considering the facts on record if at this stage the accused is released
on bail, there will be threat to the prosecution witnesses. There are
chances that the applicant will tamper with the prosecution evidence.
He is not permanent resident of Mumbai. There are chances that he will
flee away from the justice. Investigation in the offence of murder is at
preliminary stage. The police are investigating the elements of criminal
conspiracy. Hence, considering all these facts on record, I am of the
view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this
stage. In the result, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.400 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
Date : 05/03/2024
Dictated on
: 05.03.2024
Transcribed on
: 06.03.2024
Signed by HHJ on : 11.03.2024
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

6
B.A. 400/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
05/03/2024
6.01 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A.
Room No.)
Sasne, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 05/03/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
11/03/2024
ORDER uploaded on
11/03/2024