Govinda Nagesh Naik v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2051 OF 2024 Govinda Nagesh Naik ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Omkar Nagvekar, a/w, Sujata Patil & Meghshyam Kocharkar, for the Applicant.

Ms. Gauri Rao, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Bhatta Pawar, API, Boriwali police station. CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

9th May, 2024 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV 2.

This is an application for bail in C. R. 220 of 2024 registered AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2024.05.11 10:45:38 +0530 with Borivali police station for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 308, 504, 506, 323, 324, 143, 145, 149, 160, of Indian Penal Code 1860, read with Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

3.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 3rd May, 2024 in Bail Application No. 1996 of 2024. The applicant is similarly circumstance.

4.

Mr Pethe, the learned APP, fairly submits that parity applies. 5.

In view of the above, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on ...1

bail.

6.

Hence the following order:

Order (i) The application stands allowed.

(ii) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 220 of 2024 registered with Borivali police station for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 308, 504, 506, 323, 324, 143, 145, 149, 160, of Indian Penal Code 1860, read with Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(iii) The applicant shall mark his presence at Boravali Police Station on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 am to 12.00 noon for a period of two years or till conclusion of trial, whichever is earlier.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant and any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case. ...2

(v) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the co-accused and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

(vi) Application stands disposed of.

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) ...3