Takkusingh Alias Naginasingh Ajitsingh Kalyani v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:28427 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2025 Takkusingh @ Naginasingh Ajitsingh Kalyani ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondents

.....

Advocate for the applicant: Mr. Joydeep Chatterji A.P.P. for the respondents: Mr. R.S. Wani .....

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE

ORDER

: 06.10.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING

ORDER

: 08.10.2025 PER COURT :- 1.

This is an application for granting regular bail under section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in connection with crime No. 589 of 2022 registered with Vivekanand Chowk police station, Latur, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 120(b) of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 25 of Arms Act.

2.

The informant averred in the report that the dacoits came to his house on 12.10.2022 and lateron the applicant and other accused persons were arrested.

-23.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that for more than two years, the applicant is behind bars. The trial would not conclude as early as possible and the report called from the concerned Sessions Court also does not show that the trial will conclude within a reasonable time. He pointed out the order passed by this Court in Bail application No.2017 of 2023 dated 10.6.2024, by which the applicant's application for bail was rejected. The applicant thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Diary No. 697 of 2025 and by order dated 28.4.2025 the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedies which may be available to him in law. He further pointed out the order passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 1746 of 2024 dated 10.2.2025 and the order passed in Bail Application No. 386 of 2025 dated 8.4.

2025 by which the co-accused were released on bail on the ground of delayed trial. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that similar role is attributed to this applicant. Therefore, he is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He submitted that the trial is not started and concluded within a reasonable time and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

4.

The learned A.P.P. for the State strongly opposed the application by pointing out the report and the statements of

-3witnesses. It is pointed out that the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- is seized at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is booked for serious crime. There is recovery of stolen articles like gold ornaments etc. at the instance of this applicant amounting to Lakhs of Rupees. The applicant has 26 antecedents. He is habitual offender and sentenced for life imprisonment in 3 to 4 criminal cases. If the applicant is released on bail, certainly he will commit similar nature of crime and will pressurize the prosecution witnesses and also tamper with the evidence. The society in general is not safe because of such dacoits. It is lastly submitted that considering the role of the applicant, the application may be rejected.

6.

Perused the report as well as the orders by which the application of the applicant was rejected earlier and by which the coaccused were released on bail by this Court. The antecedents of this applicant are very serious than the other accused persons. He has been sentenced in four cases as per the antecedents. Most of the cases are registered against him for commission of theft, murder, dacoity etc. In such circumstances, certainly the applicant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity. As far as the conclusion of the trial is concerned, the trial court has submitted that there is no any time bound matter as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme court or by this Court. Considering the serious nature of the crime,

-4and the possibility of the commission of similar nature of crime by this applicant, this application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order.

O R D E R

I.

The application is rejected.

II.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial in sessions case No. 21 of 2023 pending before the Sessions Court at Latur as early as possible and in any case within a year from today, by keeping the matter twice or thrice in a week. III.

Needless to mention that the sessions means once it is started it shall not be stopped.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/