Aniket Amar Suryavanshi v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1136 OF 2024 Aniket Amar Suryavanshi ...
Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ------------------- Mr. Rajesh Sonar, for the applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP, for the Respondent/State. --------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:
2024.08.12 10:20:30 +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.638 of 2021, registered with Shahupuri Police Station, District: Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 120(B), 324, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOC', Act).
3.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is nothing to show that the applicant is the member of gang/syndicate. It is submitted that though there are six antecedents. However, out of
which, five offences were registered as Juvenile against the applicant. 4.
It is further pointed out that the accused nos. 3 and 5 have been released in the present offence. It is lastly argued that since the chargesheet has been filed considering the period of incarceration of the applicant who is in jail from 16.11.2021, further custody of the applicant is not required. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail. 4.
On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed the application. It is pointed out that there is a gang namely Suryawanshi gang and the applicant is the member of the said gang. It is pointed out from the statements of the witnesses the role attributed to the applicant and the presence of the applicant at the time of the incident. 5.
As far as motive pointed out by the learned APP, is disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that such motive is not mentioned in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
6.
Having gone through the charge-sheet and the material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that the provisions of MCOC have been invoked in the present matter against the applicant.
7.
So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the accused nos. 3 and 5 have been released on bail, the learned APP has pointed out that after they were released, they committed another offence and accordingly, the bail granted to the accused no. 5 was cancelled and the application of the accused no. 3 for cancellation of bail is pending.
8.
Thus, since there is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the applicant in the present matter and since the offence is serious, I do not find the present case as a fit case for grant of bail. Moreover, there is no reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty and if the applicant is released on bail he will not commit the similar offence.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J)