Rani Mahesh Jagnade v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4089 OF 2025 Rani Mahesh Jagnade ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2726 OF 2025 SONALI SATISH KILAJE by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.02.02 10:22:47 +0700 Ganesh Kailas Chauhan ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vivek Arote a/w. Mr. Akshay Dingale, Advocate for the Applicant in BA/4089/2025.

Mr. Amit Icham, Advocate for the Applicant in BA/2726/2025. Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

These two applications are arising out of same crime hence I am deciding both these applications by this common order. 2.

By these applications, the Applicants are seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 1093 of 2022 registered with Chakan Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") and

Sections 307, 332, 353, 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 04.07.2022, police intercepted one car but the car driver did not stop the car and tried to run over, the police party who attempted to stop the car with intention to kill the police party and first informant. After going ahead the said car turned turtle. The police apprehended the applicant and co-accused. In search of the said car, police found the applicant- Ganesh and other co-accused carrying 210 kg Ganja. It is alleged that applicant Rani had given money to the applicant and co-accused to bring the said Ganja from Vishakhapattanam. Accordingly, the said Ganja was being brought in said car. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant -Ganesh in B.A. 2726 of 2025 that the applicant was driving the said car. The coaccused having similar allegations have been released on bail. Hence, the applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant - Rani in B.A. 4089 of 2025 that there is no evidence produced on record to show that the Rani had given money to the co-accused to bring the said Ganja from Vishakhapattanam. The applicant is behind bars for three years and six months. There is no progress in the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant Rani has six antecedents, out of which two are of similar nature. If the applicant is released on bail, she may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Learned APP further submitted that applicant- Ganesh tried to run over the police party with speeding car with intention to kill them. If he released on bail, he may abscond and requested to reject the application. 5.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. Police apprehended three persons from the car along with applicant- Ganesh. Out of three persons, two coaccused have been released on bail. Hence, the applicant -Ganesh is entitled for bail on principle of parity. To prove the allegations against the applicant-Rani that she had given money to bring Ganja from Vishakhapattanam, evidence is required. She is behind bars for more than three years. She is lady. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The applicants be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 1093 of 2022 registered with Chakan Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- each on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

ii.

The applicants shall attend the concerned police

station as and when required.

iii.

The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. 6.

The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of. 7.

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.

8.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)