Prathamesh Shashank Kamble v. State Of Maharashtra

(25)-BA-2092-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2092 OF 2024 Prathamesh Shashank Kamble ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Siddharth D. Agrawal, for the applicant.

Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad, APP, for the Respondent/State. Mr. Bhushan Raut I.by Vaibhav Lavande, for complainant. API, Pratiksha Shendage, Faraskhana Police Station, Present ---------------------

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.08.07 14:06:47 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

6TH 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.233 of 2023, registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1)(3) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 4(25) of the Arms Act.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that except varsha

(25)-BA-2092-2024.doc the role that he was standing at the spot of incident there is no role attributed to the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail from last 9 months and in the meantime the charge-sheet has been filed. It is therefore, submitted that further custody of the applicant is not necessary. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail. 4.

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed the application and points out the relevant evidence which is against the applicant and prays for rejection of the application. 5.

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that there are eye-witnesses to the incident. One of the witnesses, who got injured in the alleged incidence, in his statement named the applicant. It is the case of unlawful assembly with common intention and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that no role is attributed to the applicant, is not material. The Post Morterm report shows that 43 chop injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which further shows that the deceased was brutally killed. 6.

In the circumstances, as there are four eyewitnesses to the incident and as the involvement of the applicant is prima facie apparent, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha