Ritesh Shantikumar Salve v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 986 of 2025 Ritesh Shantikumar Salve Age 20 years, Occ. Service / Student, R/o. Rajwade Nagar, Sai Shraddha Colony, Mahesh Mule Building, Kalewadi, Pune.

... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Through Kalewadi Police Station, Dist. - Pune.

... Respondent.

---- Mr Ajinkya V Taskar a/w Mr Ashok Robert i/b Narayan Rokade, for the Applicant.

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

PSI Venkat Pote, Kalewadi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad. ---- Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2025.08.13 18:56:29 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 12 August 2025 P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.60 of 2025, registered at Kalewadi Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2.

According to the prosecution, on 9 February 2025, while the informant and his friend, Sagar, were walking near the ground adjacent to Silo Church, the applicant was standing with the co-accused nearby. It is alleged that the co-accused, Rishikesh, demanded money from the informant to purchase alcohol. The informant's refusal enraged Rishikesh and the coaccused, who began abusing and assaulting the informant. During the assault, while co-accused Rishikesh and Shankar attacked the informant with iron sickles, other unidentified coaccused assaulted him using a wooden stick, stones, kicks and punches, targeting his head, hands, shoulders, left knee, and thigh, and causing multiple injuries.

3.

Mr Ajinkya Taskar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, asserting the applicant's innocence, contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that the allegations in the FIR against the applicant are general and bereft of details. Even as per the FIR, no weapon was used by the applicant to inflict injuries on the informant. Apart from the mere allegation that the applicant was standing with the co-accused, there is no material to link the applicant with the commission of the alleged crime. The learned Counsel further submits that the weapon allegedly used by the co-accused has already been recovered, and the

applicant's custody is unwarranted. No recovery or discovery is required to be made at the applicant's behest. The co-accused, whose role is much more serious, has already been released on regular bail. The investigation has concluded, culminating in filing a charge sheet. Mr Taskar also submits that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions set forth by this Court if granted pre-arrest bail.

4.

Mr Prashant Jadhav, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant's request for pre-arrest bail and contends that the offence is of a serious nature. He submits that the applicant is a member of the unlawful assembly, and he assaulted the informant. Some of the weapons used in the commission of the offence are yet to be recovered. If granted pre-arrest bail, the applicant may tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. 5.

Upon perusing the records, more particularly the contents of the FIR, it appears that the allegations leveled against the applicant are of a vague and general nature. The sole act ascribed to the applicant is his presence in the company of the co-accused at the time of the alleged incident. Even on the informant's own showing, there is no assertion that the applicant employed any weapon to assault the informant.

Furthermore, the statements of the purported eyewitnesses do not implicate the applicant as an assailant or as a participant in any unlawful assembly. Prima facie, the material on record does not suggest any active participation by the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Additionally, the co-accused have already been released on bail, and the investigation is at an advanced stage. There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. The prosecution's apprehensions about potential evidence tampering and witness influence can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions. Given these circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in CR No.60 of 2025, registered at Kalewadi Police Station, Pune, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the investigating officer.

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall refrain from

tampering with evidence or exerting influence over witnesses.

6.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (R.N. Laddha, J.)