Sunil Kumar Arjunram Ravani v. State Of Maharashtra
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4416 OF 2025 Sunil Kumar Arjunram Ravani ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Osman A Chishty, i/b Ashok A Rao & Jivan Hiwrale, for the Applicant.
Ms. Manisha R Tidke , APP for the State-Respondent.
CORAM
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED:
27th NOVEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.
By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.62 of 2025 dated 27th January, 2025, registered with the Pantnagar Police Station, Brihanmumbai City for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),115(2), 189(2), 190 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS").
2.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant and his son went to the Head Quarters Restaurant and Bar on
25th January 2025 to meet the Complainant's friend namely, Santosh Sanjay Shetty, who was the owner of the Head Quarters Restaurant and Bar. The Complainant and his son waited for the owner to come to the restaurant. However, he was delayed. The Complainant then inquired with the manager as to when the owner was likely to arrive. On this ground, the manager and other waiters in the hotel started a scuffle with the Complainant and his son. In the scuffle, the Complainant's son was injured and eventually he succumbed to his injuries. The FIR was thus registered and the Applicant along with others were arrested on 27th January 2025. 3.
The Applicant made an Application seeking bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, however, by order dated 3rd October, 2025, the said Bail Application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed the present Bail Application for relief as prayed.
4.
Mr. Osman Chishty, learned counsel for the Applicant, points to the recording of statement of a witness, wherein it is
clearly stated that some waiters including the Applicant were involved in an alteration with the deceased and his father. However, the statement reveals that it is Rajesh Kumar Harakhu Yadav, who beat up the deceased with a wooden log and another accused namely Amar Patil and Sohel @S.K. Aamin Housain Shaikh, who assaulted the deceased with a leather belt and another with chappals. As far as the present Applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he beat the deceased with his hands.
5.
Ms. Manisha Tidke, learned APP, representing the State, submits that the offence is serious and the name of the Applicant is also taken by eye witnesses and the complainant. She submits that the CCTV footage also reveals that the present Applicant was seen beating the deceased with his hands. In these circumstances, she submits that the Bail Application be rejected.
6.
I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7.
It is very clear from the statements of the eye witnesses that although the present Applicant was also assaulting the deceased, he was beating the deceased with his hands. It is the three accused namely Rajesh Kumar Harakhu Yadav, Amar Patil and Sohel @S.K. Aamin Housain Shaikh who are seen even in the CCTV footage to be beating the deceased with a wooden log, a leather belt and chappals. As far as the present Applicant is concerned, he has joined the fracas and is beating the deceased with his hands. The Applicant has no antecedents and is unlikely to repeat the offence. Mr. Chishty, also relied upon order dated 17th November 2025 passed by this Court in the Bail Application moved by the co-accused namely, Puttuswami Gavi Gowda and Jakir Ansari. The role attributed to Puttuswami and Jakir is identical to that of the present Applicant. In these circumstances and considering the principle of parity, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police Station concerned once in a month between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed; iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
8.
Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.
9.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date:
2025.11.28 10:10:07 +0530 SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN