Raj Pravin Mahire v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:21270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1482 OF 2024 RAJ PRAVIN MAHIRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Suniket Anil Kulkarni APP for Respondent : Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari ...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 06-09-2024 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The applicant seeks bail in C.R.No.229 of 2024 registered with Shahada Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that one Rajendra Uttamrao Marathe was killed with the help of a contract killer. He was suddenly missing when he went to the market. On the second day of his missing, his dead body was found burnt. Then the wheels of investigation were put into motion. It was transpired against the applicant that he was one of the accused who paid money to the contract killer. The prosecution has a case that the co-accused

video-graphed the burning of the dead body to show the proof to the person who engaged them to kill the deceased. 4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no strong evidence against the applicant. He has been arraigned as an accused only on suspicion. Nothing is recovered from him. Hence, bail may be granted.

5.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the application. She submits that the applicant was captured in the C.C.T.V. footage while roaming in the same area where the deceased had gone. She also submits that the applicant was captured in the C.C.T.V. footage of petrol pump where they had purchased petrol to burn the dead body. The offence is serious. It is a brutal murder. After the murder, the body was taken to the lonely place. Hence, the applicant may not be granted bail. 6.

Perused the papers and the way of committing the murder. 7.

This seems to be a height of cruelty. A person was burnt after his murder. One of the co-accused video-graphed the dead body while burning as a proof for the person who engaged the contract killers. The evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant is prima facie sufficient to believe that the applicant is involved in the crime. There appears a substance in the submissions of the learned A.P.P.

8.

Considering the material placed on record and the evidence against the applicant and other co-accused, the Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant bail. 9.

For the above reasons, the bail application stands dismissed. ( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE rrd