Amarsingh Jagarsingh Tak v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2412 OF 2025 Amarsingh Jagarsingh Tak ....Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Salman Pathan, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 473 of 2024 registered with Wanavdi Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5), 249(b), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4(25), 37(1)(3) read with 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3, 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 25th August 2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant-an ACP, with a sickle with the intention to kill him when he was discharging his duty. It is alleged that after the commission of the crime, the applicant gave shelter to the coSHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM accused, helped them to change clothes used in the crime, and provided a vehicle for their escape.

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.03.26 11:06:35 +0530

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for 11⁄2 years. He had not participated in the actual assault on the first informant. There are no antecedents against the applicant. The charge is not yet framed, and it may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has eight antecedents. The accused tried to kill a police officer who was discharging his duty. The applicant was aware of the act done by the co-accused; in spite of that, he gave shelter to them. The vehicle used in the crime is recovered by the police. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The allegation against the applicant is that he provided help to the co-accused after the commission of the crime. The applicant had not participated in the crime. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and six months and yet the charge is not framed. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 473 of 2024 registered with Wanavdi 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.)