Sushil Madhukar Jogdand v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3605 OF 2025 Vinod Vishwas Mane, Age: 22 Years, Occu.: Hotel Business, R/o.: Aakaichi Wadi, Undale, Taluka : Karad, District : Satara, At present Kolhapur District Jail.

.....Applicant Vs.

State of Maharashtra, At the instance of Karad City Police Station, Karad, District : Satara.

.....Respondent Mr. Rushikesh Pawar, i/b. Mr. Amit Waykool, for the Applicant. Ms. Reka Musale (Through VC), for the Intervenor. Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mrs. Tabbasum Shadivan, API, Karad City Police Station is present. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 4th FEBRUARY 2026 ORDER :- 1.

The Applicant is arrested in Crime Registration No.621 of 2024 registered with Karad City Police Station, Taluka Karad, District Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian penal Code. 2.

It is alleged that the applicant alongwith other co-accused committed murder of Karan Barge, who has issued the threatening letter to the accused No.4, who is the sister of the Applicant-accused No.5. The deceased-Karan sent the obscene morphed photographs of 1/3

said lady and defamed her. The accused No.4 has lodged the complaint in police station and thereafter, the Applicant was found sending said letters from the post office. The accused No.4 was knowing the Applicant. She called him and thereafter he was beaten brutally by all the six accused persons and the mob gathered there and because of said assault the deceased Karan died. 3.

The counsel for Applicant has stated that the Applicant was present there. He has not assaulted the deceased. The other two accused persons are released on bail and hence, the ground of parity is available to this Applicant. The eye-witnesses have not attributed any role to this Applicant. One of the allegations made against this Applicant by the eye-witness is that the cousin of the Applicant came to see the deceased, who was lying in naked condition and was unconscious, at that time, when he tried to put clothes on his person, this Applicant slapped him. This is the only overt act attributed to this Applicant. As he has not assaulted and other co-accused are released on bail, prayed to release the Applicant on bail. 4.

The learned APP opposed the application stating that the statements of eye-witnesses show that he has assaulted with bamboo stick. The cause of death is due to injury. There were 22 injuries on 2/3

the person of the deceased. He died due to hemorrhagic shock due to inter-muscular bleeding due to assault poly-trauma with head injury. As this Applicant has assaulted with the wooden stick, his active role is there. The role attributed to the accused, who were released on bail, is of assault by fist and blows. Therefore, the parity is not available to this Applicant. Hence, payed to reject the application.

5.

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 6.

The Applicant is coming before this Court on the ground of parity as two accused are released on bail. According to Applicant, the role played by the Applicant is similar to other accused persons. However, after going through the statements of eye-witnesses, it appears that he assaulted with wooden stick. The death caused due to assault. There was head injury. Considering the role played by this Applicant and as the charge is already framed, this is not a fit case to release the Applicant on bail on the ground of parity and also on merits.

7.

Hence, the Application is rejected.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) 3/3 Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2026.02.06 18:14:06 +0530 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD