Amit Machhindra Shete v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4101 OF 2025 Amit Machhindra Shete ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vipul Dushing along with Tanmay Kate, Mr. Ashraf Kazi and Mr. Shivdarshan Khedkar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

PSI-Uma Gawade, Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, present.

_________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 332 of 2024 registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 398, 504, 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Ac, Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. 2.

It is prosecution's case that on 27th June 2024, the co-accused entered the jewellery shop of the first informant and, by threatening with Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:

2026.02.24 10:48:57 +0530 sickle, attempted to rob the gold ornaments. It is alleged that at the time of SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM the incident, the applicant was sitting in a car outside the said shop.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than 19 months. The allegation against the applicant is only that he was sitting in the car outside the said shop. The applicant neither entered the shop nor attempted to rob the first informant's shop. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has one antecedent. He was sitting in the car which had brought the co-accused for committing the robbery. An iron rod has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond. The role of the co-accused is different from that of the present applicant. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The role attributed to the applicant is that, at the time of the robbery, he was sitting in the car. He has not entered into the shop of the first informant. To prove the role of the applicant in the crime, evidence will be required. The applicant is behind bars for more than 19 months. There is no progress in the trial. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 332 of 2024

registered with Talegaon Dabhade 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 tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

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.)