Pratik S/O Sudhir Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra

939-ba-801-2023.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.801 OF 2023 PRATIK S/O SUDHIR JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshpande Chaitanya Chandrakant APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade ...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : JUNE 13, 2023 PER COURT:- 1.

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

2.

The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.459 of 2022 registered with Satara Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 384, 385, 364-A, 170, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The applicant is seeking bail on the ground that he has a limited role to drive the vehicle in the alleged incident. He was not the part of the alleged incident. However, the video clip barely shows that he has stated that he be taken to police station. Considering the role attributed to the applicant and completion of the investigation, he may be granted bail.

939-ba-801-2023.odt (2) 4.

Learned APP would oppose the application and argue that the offence is serious. The complainant was systematically honeytrapped. Huge amount was demanded from him. His vehicle is sought to be transferred for the ransom. The prosecution has a cogent evidence to believe that the victim/first informant was abducted for ransom. The money was transferred in the bank account of the applicant which he had shared with the co-accused. The offence is harmful to the society. It was a systematic and afterthought crime. Considering the gravity of the crime, the applicant shall not be released on bail.

5.

Perused the papers. There is a cogent and reliable evidence against the applicant that he was the part of the crime. He was all the way present when the ransom was demanded. It was a systematic honeytrap. Such offences are harmful to the society. Any good man may be trapped again if the accused is granted bail. That apart, the offence is serious. There is ample evidence against the applicant. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

6.

For the above reasons, the application stands dismissed. (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//