Mayur Prakash Parab v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5321 OF 2024 Mayur Prakash Parab ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kuldeep Nikam along with Ms. Nishi Singhvi, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. API-M. R. Pande, Sant Tukaram Nagar Police Station. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, , Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4)of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM 2.
It is prosecution's case that on 9th June 2023, the applicant SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.01.22 19:18:40 +0530 and co-accused murdered the deceased on the ground that he was providing information to the police.
3.
It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. After 20 days of the incident, in the supplementary statement of the first informant, the name of the applicant is included in the present crime. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is behind bars for more than 2 1⁄2 years, there is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It might take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application.
4.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased and murdered him. The applicant was present at the time of the incident. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond and threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet and documents produced from the record. In the FIR, the name of the applicant is not mentioned. After about 20 days, the supplementary statement of the first informant is recorded and in the said statement, the name of the applicant is mentioned, but no specific role is attributed to the applicant in the said statement. The applicant is behind bars for more than 2 1⁄2 years. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedents. It might take time to conclude the trial. Considering these
facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 625 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
(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.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
6.
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.
7.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)