Bombay High CourtBA/3273/2025allowed

Suhas Dattatray More v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025-11-07Hon'Ble Justice Dr. Neela Kedar Gokhale7 pages

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3273 OF 2025 Suhas Dattatray More ...Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Ayush Pasbola i/by Ms. Sharvi Khot and Virendra Khot, for the Applicant.

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent - State. PI - Nitin Kumbhar, Crime Branch Unit-4, Mumbai, present.

CORAM

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

DATED:

07TH NOVEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No. 186 of 2024 dated 17th April 2024 registered with R.A.K. Marg Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). Upon further investigation, the offenses under Sections 302, 354, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC were also added in the charge-sheet.

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc 2.

There are in all 16 accused. The Applicant is accused No.2.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that all the accused as well as the deceased and his family were residing in the same building. It is alleged that the deceased had gone upto the terrace of the building, wearing only a towel. The residents of the society alleged that the deceased was behaving in an indecent manner. It is also alleged that the deceased behaved in similar manner on earlier occasions as well. The society residents, including the present applicant, infuriated by the promiscuous behavior of the deceased beat him up. The deceased succumbed to his injuries and hence, the present FIR was filed. The Applicant filed an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. However, by order dated 11th July, 2025, his bail application was rejected. Hence, he is before this Court seeking the relief as prayed.

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc 4.

Mr. Pasbola, learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset placed on record the order dated 10th October, 2025, passed by this Court in Bail Application No.3871 of 2025 pertaining to co-accused, Balu Karbhari Abhang. By the said order Accused No.4 - Balu Karbhari Abhang in the present criminal case has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Mr.Pasbola, thus, seeks parity with the said Accused No.4 insofar as present Applicant is concerned. He submits that role attributed to the Accused No.4 i.e. Balu Karbhari Abhang is identical if not higher than the role attributed to the present Applicant. On this ground alone, Mr.Pasbola submits that the Applicant be enlarged on bail. At this stage, he has restricted his arguments to the doctrine of parity.

Per contra Ms. Malhotra, learned APP, submits that the offence is committed collectively by all the co-accused who were the members of the Society and had singled out the deceased for ill-tretment and assault by all of them on one person i.e. the deceased was a result of some imaginary or real vendetta / grudge against the said deceased. She submits

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc that the present Applicant was present at the spot of the incident and he also had given blows to the deceased. In these circumstances, she submits that the Application be rejected. 6.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.

I have perused the order dated 10th October, 2025, passed in the case of Balu Karbhari Abhang. In fact, the present Applicant stands at the better footing than Balu Abhang. Insofar as said Abhang is seen in the video clip shot by co-accused giving blow to the deceased, however, the present Applicant is not seen to be assaulting the deceased in the video clip. In these circumstances, since this Court has enlarged Accused No.4 on bail, on the principle of parity, I am inclined to grant bail to the present Applicant, and it is ordered as under:-

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc

ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount; ii) The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs.50,000/- for his release immediately and file undertaking that he will provide one or two sureties in the like amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of four weeks after his release, which shall be accepted by the Trial Court. The Applicant shall provide the sureties as directed;

iii) The Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of the RAK Marg Police Station, especially in the premises of Sudarshan Building, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Parel, Mumbai, till all the eyewitnesses are examined; iv) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date as directed, till the

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc conclusion of the trial, save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance by orders of the Trial Court;

v) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the Police Station concerned;

vi) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;

vii) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

viii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court

(P.A.) 30-BA-3273-2025.doc seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned;

ix) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

x) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)