Gautam Govind More v. The State Of Maharashtra

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1985 OF 2025 Gautam Govind More ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Vinod Utekar for the applicant.

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Mrs. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the respondent-State. ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.07.07 17:48:08 +0530 Mr. Sudhir Suresh Sathe, PSI, Chitalsar Police Station, is present.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 7, 2025 P.C.:

1.

This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.961 of 2024, registered with Chitalsar Manpada Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Tejashree Dalvi, who is a nurse by profession, received a phone call at around 1.30 a.m., informing her that her son Vighnesh had been admitted to Bethany Hospital. Upon receiving the call, she immediately rushed to the hospital and found that her son had sustained multiple injuries on different parts of his body. He had

received seven stitches on the upper portion of his head. Later, he was shifted to Jupiter Hospital for further treatment. From her acquaintances, she came to know that the applicant, along with the other co-accused, had brutally assaulted her son when he was returning home on a motorcycle accompanied by his friends, namely Vijay, Prakash, and Varun. It is alleged that the assault was of such severity that, although the victim has been discharged from the hospital, he is still not in a position to give his statement, showing the gravity and lasting effect of the injuries inflicted upon him.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed, and it comprises statements of three eye-witnesses. Out of them, only one witness has specifically attributed the act of assault by iron rod to the applicant, whereas the other two witnesses have attributed a different role - one to the act of throwing a bamboo stick and another to the assault by iron rod on the head by another co-accused. It is, therefore, submitted that there is apparent inconsistency in the version of eye-witnesses regarding the exact role of the applicant. The applicant has been in custody since 26th November 2024, and there are no criminal antecedents against him. On these grounds, the learned counsel urges that the applicant be released on bail. 4.

On the other hand, the learned APP has vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the First Information Report itself is based upon the statements of the witnesses, one of whom has clearly attributed the role of assault on the head of the victim to the applicant. It is further pointed out that an iron rod allegedly

used in the assault has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that Jay, who is released on bail, was a juvenile in conflict with law, and therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with him. In light of the seriousness of the offence, the learned APP prayed for rejection of the bail application.

5.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the charge-sheet and the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the incident in question is of serious nature and the victim had suffered grievous injuries, particularly on the head, requiring hospitalization and medical treatment at two hospitals. However, it is also to be noted that the investigation is now complete and charge-sheet has been filed. 6.

Upon perusal of the statements of the three eye-witnesses, it is revealed that only one witness attributes the specific act of assault by iron rod to the present applicant, while the other two eye-witnesses have assigned different roles either to the co-accused or have mentioned the throwing of a bamboo stick. This gives rise to inconsistency in the ocular account as to the precise role of the present applicant in the alleged incident.

7.

It further appears that the applicant has been in custody since 26th November 2024, and there is no material placed on record to indicate that he has any prior criminal antecedents. The iron rod alleged to have been used in the incident has already been recovered during investigation. The victim has been discharged

from the hospital, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, especially considering the number of accused and witnesses involved.

8.

Considering the above circumstances and taking into account the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and particularly in absence of any possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence or threatening witnesses, I am of the opinion that continued incarceration of the applicant is not warranted at this stage.

9.

Hence, following order:

i) The bail application is allowed;

ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime Register No.961 of 2024 registered with Chitalsar Manpada Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 49 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall attend Chitalsar Manpada Police Station on first Monday of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., until further orders.

b) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence any witness.

c) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on

every date of hearing unless prevented by sufficient cause. d) The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission.

e) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the pendency of the trial.

f) Any breach of these conditions shall result in the prosecution moving for cancellation of bail before the Trial Court.

10.

The bail application is allowed and disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)