Mayur Nitin Avchare v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1733 OF 2025 Jitesh @ Munna Ravindra Jagtap ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
with CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4246 OF 2025 by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:
2026.02.27 19:16:41 +0530 SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Mayur Nitin Avchare ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sachin Deokar along with Mr. Vignesh Ashokan, Advocate for Applicant in BA/1733/2025.
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi along with Mr. Ishan Paradkar and Mr. Avishkar Dhumal, Advocate for the Applicant in BA/4246/2025. Mr. B. B.Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI-Gangadhar S. Dhage, Sangvi Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
These two applications are arising out of the same crime, hence, I am deciding them by this common order. 2.
By these applications, the applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No. 238 of 2024 registered with Sangavi Police Station, PimpriChinchwad, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 37(1)
(3) read with Section 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Section 3(25)(27) of the Indian Arms Act, Sections 3 and 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.
3.
It is prosecution's case that on 29th May 2024, the applicants and co-accused committed murder of first informant's friend by firing at him. The allegations against the applicant - Jitesh @ Munna Ravindra Jagtap are that he conspired to kill the deceased, and the allegations against applicant-Mayur Nitin Avchare are that he was keeping watch on the deceased.
4.
It is contention of learned counsel for the respective applicants that the applicants were not present at the incident spot. To prove the allegations of conspiracy and keeping watch on the deceased, evidence is required. The applicants are behind bars for more than 1 1⁄2 years. They have antecedents but no offence is registered against with gang leader. It may take time to conclude the trial, and requested to allow the applications.
5.
It is contention of the learned APP that the applicants conspired to kill the deceased. Accordingly, the co-accused fired at him and murdered him. The applicant-Mayur was keeping watch on the deceased, and he gave a tip to the co-accused, and accordingly the deceased was
attacked. The applicant- Jitesh was a part of the conspiracy to kill the deceased. If the applicants are released on bail, they may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the applications.
6.
I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicants are of conspiracy and keeping watch on the deceased. To prove the role of the applicants in the crime, evidence is required. The applicants have not committed any offence with the gang leader. The applicants are behind bars for more than 1 1⁄2 years. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the following order
ORDER
(i) The applicants viz.Jitesh @ Munna Ravindra Jagtap and Mayur Nitin Avchare be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 238 of 2024 registered with Sangavi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with 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.
The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly 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.)