Dilip Dnyaneshwar Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra

(904)-BA-88-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2024 Dilip Dnyaneshwar Pawar ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Nitin Sejpal, for the applicant.

Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad, APP, for the Respondent / State. Mr. Amol Jagtap with Pooja Makhija and Siddharth Bane, for the intervenor.

Mr. Vasant Jadhav, Khopoli Police Station, Present. --------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.08.12 10:20:57 +0530

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

8TH AUGUST, 2024.

PC:

1.

Heard.

2.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.0052 of 2018, registered with Khopoli Police Station, Raigad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

In the present matter on the ground of ailment i.e. spondylitis on humanitarian ground the learned trial Court granted temporary bail to varsha

(904)-BA-88-2024.doc the applicant which was extended for three years for one or the other reason and lastly at the request of the prosecution the applicant was required to surrender before the trial Court. Thereafter, the regular bail was moved by the applicant, which came to be rejected. 4.

Having considered the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant. There is CCTV footage and statements of witnesses who support the case of the prosecution. The offence is very serious and considering the nature of aliment, I do not find the said reason in such a serious offence as sufficient for grant of regular bail.

5.

In addition to this, the learned APP, Mr. Gaikwad made a statement that the prosecution wants to examine 13 witnesses out of which 2 have been already examined and within six months the State will try to conclude the trial, if the applicant co-operates. 5.

Thus, considering the seriousness of the offence and further the possibility that, if the applicant is released on bail at the stage of trial, there is every likelihood that he may pressurize the witnesses, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 6.

Liberty is granted to move after nine months, if the trial is not concluded in nine months.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha