Vishnu Yashwant Jadhav v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1454 of 2025 Vishnu Yashwant Jadhav ... Applicant/s

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

... Respondent/s ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Priyal Sarda i/b. Mr. Shubham Sane, Advocate for the Applicant/s. Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Mahableshwar Toraskar i/b. Advocate-V.Shinde, for the Intervenor. PSI-Birajdar, Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune City. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 571 of 2021 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 3(25) and 5(27) of Arms Act, Sections 37(10(3) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3 and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 22nd October 2021, the Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:

2026.01.13 18:19:43 +0530 applicant and co-accused murdered the deceased-Santosh Jagtap by firing SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM at him and tried to kill the first informant and his friend by firing at them.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations against the applicant are of conspiracy. The applicant is serving a life term sentence and he is behind bar. The co-accused, against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail. The applicant is behind bar for more than three years, hence, requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant is the main conspirator. There are statements of two witnesses who have heard the conversation between co-accused of conspiracy. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses, and, hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet, and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bar as he is serving a life term sentence. The statements of witnesses show that they had heard a conversation between the co-accused stating that the applicant had sent a message to kill the deceased to take revenge. The co-accused, against who similar allegations are made, has been released on bail. Considering these facts, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 571 of 2021 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune City, 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.)