Kiran Lakhan Randive v. State Of Maharashtra

72-ba-2776-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2776 OF 2024 Kiran Lakhan Randive ...

Applicant V/s.

The State Of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Satyavrat Joshi with Yash Fadtare I.by Ashish Kachole, for the applicant.

Ms. Priyanka Rane, APP, for the Respondent / State. PSI, Nitin Babar, Sangli Rural Police Station, Present. --------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.10.23 14:22:10 +0530

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

21ST OCTOBER, 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.310 of 2022, registered with Sangli Gramin Police Station, Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 364-A, 365, 397, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO during the investigation, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no material to varsha

72-ba-2776-2024.doc show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the applicant was identified by a witness whose mobile was used by the applicant just before the offence to call the deceased near Bharat Benz Showroom, Tung. Furthermore, there is a statement of the witness who is the owner of the Activa scooter which was used by the co-accused in the present offence to follow the car of the deceased. It has come in the statement of the owner of the Activa scooter that the Activa was handed over to the coaccused at the request of the applicant. The spot of incident was pointed out by the applicant.

4.

In the circumstances, though nothing is recovered from the applicant and further in the CCTV footage faces cannot be seen clearly, the above referred incriminating material is sufficient to prima facie show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. 5.

The offence is very serious. Thus, in that view of the matter, I do not find the present case as fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha