Vinod @ Tom Popat More v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3351 OF 2025 Vinod @ Tom Popat More ...Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vishal V. Rankhambe along with Mr. Aparna V. Rankhambe, Mr. Chaitanya M. Bagul and Mr. Afsar Ansari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. Ms. Aruna Pai, Advocate for the Intervenor (through VC). _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 10th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 350 of 2021 registered with Baramati Taluka Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 3(25) and

(27) and 4 (25)of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999. 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 31st May 2021, the co-accused SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM fired at the first informant with the intention to kill him on the ground of SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.04.15 19:58:10 +0530 political rivalry. It is alleged that the said attack was carried out on the first informant at the instigation of the applicant.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that as per the statement of the victim, he stated the name of accused No. 3-Akash More, who shot at him, and there is no role of the present applicant in the said incident. The confession statement of accused No. 4-Rahul Yadav clearly states that the enmity was between the victim and accused No.1-Prashant More.

Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Amit Taware shows that accused No. 1-Prashant More hatched the conspiracy to kill the victim in connivance with his son i.e. accused No.3-Aakash More and co-accused. There are various discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the police. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has filed a report under Section 169 of the Cr.PC. against accused No. 6- Jaideep Taware, and the role of the present applicant and Jaideep Taware is the same. The applicant is behind bars for around four years and four months. There are 95 witnesses and only one witness has been examined. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application.

3.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for the first informant, that the injured was attacked by the co-accused on the ground of political and business rivalry. The injured has narrated earlier

threats at the hands of the present applicant and other co-accused. The supplementary statement of the injured was also recorded on 9th November 2021, narrating the motive, conspiracy, and threats given to him prior to the incident. The statement of Shailesh Dandavate shows that, in front of the said witness, the applicant and the co-accused-Prashant More and Jaideep Taware discussed and decided to finish the injuredRaviraj for not getting a civil contract. Learned APP further submitted that in the statement of Rahul Ghavane, he stated that the present applicant had given threats to the life of said witness.

The learned APP further submitted that the confession statement recorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA of co-accused-Rahul Yadav shows the role of the present applicant, along with other co-accused to eliminate injured-Raviraj Taware. Learned APP submitted that the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents. The CDR report of the co-accused and the applicant shows that they were communicating with each other prior to the incident. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the application.

4.

I have heard all the learned counsel, perused the charge sheet and documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant are of conspiracy. The statement of Shailesh Dandavate was recorded 15 days after the incident, showing the applicant's role in the conspiracy.

Whereas, the statement of Rahul Ghavhane was recorded four months after the incident. The co-accused-Jaideep Taware, against whom the allegation of conspiracy is alleged, has been released. The police has filed a report under Section 169 of the Cr.PC. The applicant is behind bars for around four years and four months. Considering the role attributed to the applicant of conspiracy, and that he is behind bars for around four years and four months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, I pass following order :

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 350 of 2021 registered with Baramati Taluka 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 enter Baramati City and Baramati Taluka till the conclusion of the trial.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

(v) If the applicant breaches any of the conditions mentioned above, the first informant is at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.

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.)