1
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13591/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-02-2022 in CRLBA No. 3670/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
ANAND @ MUKESH BHAGWAN LATE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 208636/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 208638/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 07-02-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Shubhangi Parulekar, Adv.
Ms. Prachiti Ramesh Deshpande, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Ms. Shubhangi Parulekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel representing the respondent-State of Maharashtra.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody for around three years nine months (as on date) since he was arrested on 26.07.2020. It is then submitted that four of the co-accused have been granted bail. As the trial is yet to commence, the petitioners counsel submits that bail should be favourably considered.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra would refer to the statement of the injured eyewitnesses and submits that they clearly implicated the petitioner. It is further clarified that the four co-accused, who have been granted bail, were merely present at the spot and no role in attacking the deceased was ascribed to those four co-accused.

4. Considering the circumstances, we are dis-inclined to grant bail to the petitioner (Anand @ Mukesh Bhagwan Late ) herein. 5. However, looking at the long incarceration period of three years and nine months, the prosecution should give priority to examination of the three eyewitnesses. If the evidence of the said three eyewitnesses are not recorded in the next six months from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to re-apply for bail
before the Trial Court. The six months limit is fixed keeping in mind that the accused-petitioner ( Anand @ Mukesh Bhagwan Late) will not delay the trial process.
6. With the above order and observations, the petition stands dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR