Ramesh @ Mukesh Sitaram Bhosale And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:30241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 971 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2102 OF 2024 1.

RAMESH @ MUKESH SITARAM BHOSALE 2.

DINESH VATRAYAB BHOSALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A.M. Gaikwad APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.S. Choudhari ...

CORAM

: ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

Dated : December 18, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent/State.

2.

The applicants are seeking bail as they were arrested in connection with crime No. 187/2024 dated 15.4.2024 registered with Supa Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 395, 396, 397, 307, 302 of I.P.C. and under section 4 r/w. 25 of Arms Act. 3.

The case of applicant No. 2 Dinesh Bhosle is identical with other accused Rahul Ravi Bhosle. On perusal of the panchanama, it is seen that at the instance of applicant No. 2 Dinesh, amount of Rs.7500/- and sword of Rs.500/- is recovered by the police. Similarly, at the instance of other accused Rahul Bhosle, amount of Rs.7500/- and sword of Rs.500/- was also recovered. Bail was granted to the Rahul Bhosle. 4.

As regards the case of applicant No. 1 Ramesh alias Mukesh Sitaram Bhosale is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery made at the instance of applicant No. 1 Ramesh, however, the panchanama shows that at the instance of applicant No. 1

Ramesh, certain articles were recovered which the applicant No. 1 Ramesh had robbed in another offence. He further submits that however, applicant No. 1 was granted bail in that offence.

5.

In the instant case, there is no recovery made at the instance of the applicant No. 1 Ramesh. Though his role is not similar to the applicant No. 2 Dinesh and other accused Rahul Bhosle, considering the fact situation that there is no recovery at the instance of the applicant No. 1 and there is no material connecting the applicant No. 1 to the crime, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2.

6.

In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :

a] The applicants shall be released on bail in connection with crime No. 187/2024 dated 15.4.2024 registered with Supa Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 395, 396, 397, 307, 302 of I.P.C. and under section 4 r/w. 25 of Arms Act, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

b] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial.

c] The applicants shall co-operate with the trial Court and they shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

d] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses and

other persons concerned with the case.

e] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change. 6.

Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicants shall be liable to be cancelled. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

7.

The application stands disposed of.

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ssc/