Gajanan Yuvraj Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2026 Gajanan Yuvraj Jadhav
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...
Mr. Shailesh Chavan, advocate for the applicant Mr. Nitin B. Patil APP for the State ...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 12th MARCH, 2026.
P. C. :
1.
The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 344 of 2024 dated 28/08/2024 registered with Satara Taluka Police Station, District Satara for offences punishable under Sections 109, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.
The prosecution case is that, the complainant visited Shrikrishna Hotel, Wadhe Phata, Satara, on 28th August 2024 at approximately 00:30 hours, where three unknown persons aged between 18 to 22 years, after creating a commotion, followed the Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:
2026.03.15 16:19:34 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR complainant to his motorcycle, threatened him, and demanded his 1 of
mobile phone. Upon his refusal, the said persons brandished a sickle and inflicted multiple blows upon him on his head, leg, back, and left hand, thereby making a deliberate attempt upon his life, following which the accused persons fled the scene of occurrence on a motorcycle at approximately 01:15 hours. The complainant was thereafter transported to Civil Hospital, Satara, by the proprietor of the hotel, one Vikas Bhaiyya, while one Charan Sheth, an employee of the said hotel, who had intervened to rescue the complainant, also narrowly saved himself from being assaulted by the said accused persons. Hence, the report.
3.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528], while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences has observed as under :
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: 2 of
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.) 12.
In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then said court will have to given specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.
"
4.
Thus, it casts a further onus upon this Court while deciding a successive bail application before reconsidering and substituting the earlier view.
5.
This being a successive bail application, when confronted with demonstrable change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the earlier order passed by this Court, the learned Counsel has emphasized that there is delay in trial. However, plea of delay in trial cannot be considered in isolation for bail as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP [(2016) 15 SCC 422].
3 of
6.
In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident that apart from delay in trial, same cannot be considered in isolation, no other fresh grounds are raised by the applicant. Thus, in absence of any other change in circumstances, the learned APP has demonstrated progress in trial, I am not persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
7.
The application stands rejected.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] 4 of