Rohan Pradeep More v. State Of Maharashtra

Harish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3679 OF 2025 Rohan Pradeep More ...Applicant

Versus

State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI ------- Mr. Omkar Tole Advocate for the Applicant.

Smt. P. S. Rane APP for the Respondent-State. by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:

2025.12.25 11:45:03 +0530 -------

CORAM

:

SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE :

19th DECEMBER, 2025 P.C.

1.

The Applicant is seeking regular bail in crime no. 461 of 2024 registered with Karmala Police Station, Solapur Rural, Dist-Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 333 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 17th July 2024 at around 8:30 p.m. when the first informant, her daughter, grand daughter, son and daughter-in-law were present in their house, at that time, some unknown persons wielding sickles, barged in their house. The first informant and her daughter locked themselves in one room, but, the unknown persons broke open the door of said room and assaulted the

daughter of first informant with sickle. In the said assault, the daughter of first informant was died. It is alleged that accused no.1, who is the husband of the deceased, had given contract of killing of deceased i.e. his wife, to the accused no.3 and thereafter, the accused no.3 had given the said contract to accused nos. 4, 5 and 6. The role attributed the present applicant is that the accused no. 1 met accused no. 3 with the help of present applicant.

3.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that this Court has released accused no. 3 on bail who is having higher role than the present applicant. Hence, the applicant is entitled for bail on the principle of parity and requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant introduced the accused no.3 to accused no. 1. It shows his involvement in crime. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses, hence, requested to reject the application. 5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.

6.

The applicant was not present at the time of incident. The allegation against applicant is that he introduced accused no. 3 to accused no. 1. The accused no. 3 has been released on bail. Considering this fact, the applicant is entitled for bail on principle of

parity and I pass following order:

ORDER

I.

The applicant be enlarged on bail in crime no. 461 of 2024 registered with Karmala Police Station, Solapur Rural, Dist-Solapur on executing P. R.Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

II.

The applicant shall attend the Court dates regularly. III. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. 7.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

8.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)