Pradum Suresh Bhosale v. The State Of Maharashtra

917-BA-1664.22 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.1664 OF 2022 PRADUM SURESH BHOSALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr. Kunal A. Kale, Advocate for applicant;

Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondent/State CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2023 P.C.

1.

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

2.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks bail in C.R. No.I-669 of 2021, registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 394, 458, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is 19 years old. He has not committed serious offence. The main culprit Goldsmith has been granted bail. Nothing remained to be recovered from the applicant. There is no sufficient evidence against the applicant to keep him behind bar.

917-BA-1664.22 (2) 4.

The learned A.P.P. would submit that six crimes are at the discredit of the applicant. He has been involved repeatedly in the similar crime. The applicant and other co-accused have created terror in the locality. They threat the people at the point of deadly weapon and damage the property. The stolen articles have been recovered from the applicant. Since the applicant is involved in repeated crimes with the other members, the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999, has been applied.

5.

Perused the chargesheet.

6.

It is very unfortunate that a boy of 19 years has been repeatedly committing the similar offences. Recovery of the stolen article is the best piece of evidence against the applicant. The conduct of the applicant reveals that he has determined to be in such illegal activities. Repeatedly committing similar offences in the locality must have impressed the apprehension to the life and property of the people. The applicant did not show improvement when he was granted bail in the earlier crimes. The offence is serious. There appears no possibility of improvement in the conduct and behaviour of the applicant. For these reasons, the application stands dismissed. (S. G. MEHARE, J.) amj