Prasad Gorakshnnath Revgade v. State Of Maharashtra

8-BA-3910-2025 (CR).doc S. S. Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3910 OF 2025 Prasad Gorakshannath Revgade ...

Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra ...

Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Mandaar Goswami a/w. Mr. Siddhant Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.03.16 17:38:13 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 11th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 200 of 2025 registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 352, 351(1), 351(4) r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS Act"). 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 13.03.2025, between 7 to 8 p.m., applicant and co-accused assaulted son of the first informant with sharp weapon on the ground of old dispute and murdered him. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence against him. Grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and requested to allow

8-BA-3910-2025 (CR).doc S. S. Kilaje the application. He relied on Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)1. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that the grounds of arrest were informed to the applicant. At the time of incident the applicant had caught hold of the deceased and other co-accused assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon and murdered him. There are eye witnesses to the incident. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application. 5.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The statement of eye witness shows that the applicant had caught hold the deceased whereas co-accused assaulted him with chopper. It appears from record that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the applicant and his father. There is direct evidence against the applicant to show his involvement in the crime. The incident occurred in public view. The deceased was brutally murdered by the applicant and co-accused. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or may threaten prosecution witnesses and I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The Bail Application is rejected.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) (2024) 8 SCC 254