Datta Vithal Dagade v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3082 OF 2025 Dada Vitthal Dagade ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

__________ Mr. Sanjeev Kadam Senior Advocate a/w Prashant Prabhakar Raul, learned Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Tanveer G. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. Mr. Shailesh Chavan a/w Mr. Hrishikesh Avhad & Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned Advocate for the Intervenor.

__________ CORAM :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATE :

26th AUGUST 2025.

P.C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kadam Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prashant Raul, learned Advocates for the Applicant, Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent and Mr. Shailesh Chavan, learned Advocate for the Intervenor.

2.

By the present Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS" for short), the Applicant is before this Court seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 283 of 2024 registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, District-Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 201 & 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) read with Sections 3 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. Said crime is registered as

Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024 and is pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati.

3.

Applicant is Accused No. 6 in Crime No. 283 of 2024. 4.

First Information Report was registered at the instance of Ankita Ranjeet Nimbalkar (Complainant). Case of the prosecution is that a dispute between Ranjeet Nimbalkar (deceased) and Gautam Kakde (Accused No. 1), arising out of the sale/purchase of the Bull belonging to Ranjeet Nimbalkar, resulted into assault on Ranjeet Nimbalkar. During the said assault, Accused No. 1 fired a bullet from the pistol on Ranjeet Nimbalkar. Ranjeet Nimbalkar succumbed to injuries. Applicant and others were present at the time of the incident.

5.

Applicant was arrested on 2nd July 2024, since then he is in jail. Criminal Bail Application at Exhibit-10 filed by the Applicant in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati by order dated 22nd November 2024.

6.

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam Senior Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant herein is a labourer, who was engaged by Kakade family. He submits that the involvement of the Applicant in the said crime is on account of his presence at the time of alleged incident. He submits that the Applicant was present at the place of incident as he was directed by him employer, to be present at that moment. He submits that the Complainant as well as other eyewitnesses in the crime though refer to the presence of the Applicant at place of incident, however none of the witnesses have made any

statement as regards the Applicant having assaulted the deceased or having used the pistol. He submits that Shahaji Kakde (Accused No. 3), who tried to destroy the evidence of crime is released on bail by this Court vide its order dated 27th August 2024 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 3148 of 2024. He submits that the charge-sheet does not support the prosecution case as against the Applicant.

7.

Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent submits that the material on record indicates the presence of the Applicant during the incident, wherein the Ranjeet Nimbalkar was assaulted and shot. He submits that the Applicant would be a member of the unlawful activities. He submits that the Applicant was identified in the Test Identification Parade. 8.

Mr. Shailesh Chavan, learned Advocate for the Intervenor submits that witnesses, which include the Complainant, have referred to the presence of the Applicant and the other persons at the time of the incident. He submits that a wooden stick and the DVR of CCTV have been recovered at the instance of Applicant. He submits that the Applicant being employee of Accused No. 1, the Applicant was involved in the act of preparation of the said crime. He submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to implicate the Applicant as according to him, the Applicant had a common object along with other accused persons in the said crime. 9.

I have perused the records with the assistance of learned Advocates of the parties.

10.

Complainant i.e. the widow of the deceased is the witness to

the incident. She has referred to the incident wherein her husband was assaulted, however the FIR registered at her instance and her statement recorded on 30th June 2024, though refers to the presence of the Applicant does not mention the role played by the Applicant in the assault on her husband. Similar are the statements recorded on 30th June 2024 of the other persons, who are claimed to be the eye witnesses to the crime. Supplementary statements recorded of the Complainant and the other eyewitnesses, after the Test Identification Parade, refer to the Applicant by name, however none of the statements refer to the Applicant being involved or having participated in the act of assault on Ranjeet Nimbalkar.

11.

Contentions of Mr. Shailesh Chavan, learned Advocate for the Intervenor that the Applicant who is a employee of Accused No. 1, being involved in preparation for the crime or having a common object with the Accused No.1 to commit the crime, is not borne out from the record.

12.

When Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Shailesh Chavan, learned Advocate were asked to point out the material in the charge-sheet, which attribute a role distinct to the Applicant in the assault on Ranjeet Nimbalkar, they were unable to assign a distinct role to the present Applicant.

13.

Accused No. 3, who is guilty of destroying evidence is on bail. Co-accused No. 4, who was also present at the time of incident, has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 15th July 2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 1104 of 2025. None of the statements recorded prima facie evince or evidence participation of

the Applicant in the assault. Needless to state that the leaned Trial Court will ultimately determine and adjudicate the complicity of the Applicant in the crime in accordance with law. Considering the nature of allegations against the Applicant, continuation of the Applicant in jail till the conclusion of trial is not warranted. Applicant is therefore entitled to bail.

14.

In view of the above, the present Bail Application is allowed on the following conditions :- a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 283 of 2024 registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati.

b) Applicant shall attend and regularly appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024 on each date of hearing, unless specifically exempted by the Court.

c) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer and shall not tamper with evidence.

d) Applicant upon his release, within 3 days shall furnish to the Investigation Officer, Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune, his residential address with proof and the contact number and to keep the Investigation Officer

intimated about the change in the same from time to time. 15.

Criminal Bail Application No. 3082 of 2025 stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms.

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date:

2025.08.26 19:05:02 +0530 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR