Pavan Mukund Ahire v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 561 OF 2026 Sanjay Gautam Gavali ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 713 OF 2026 Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.03.13 14:37:45 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE Pavan Mukund Ahire ... Applicant

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra ... Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Chetan Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Rudra Tibhe, Advocates for the Applicant in BA/561/2026.

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State in BA/561/2026. Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant in BA/713/2026. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State in BA/713/2026. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 11th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

Both applications are arising out of same crime, hence I am deciding these applications by this common order. 2.

The Applicants are seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 84 of 2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 311, 324(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS Act"); Sections 4, 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

3.

It is prosecution's case that on 01.03.2025, applicants and coaccused barged into the bakery shop of the first informant, damaged his shop using a sickle and took away Rs.5,800/- from the cash counter. 4.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are behind bars for more than one year. There is no progress in the trial. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has been filed and requested to allow the applications.

5.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicants have antecedents. They barged into the bakery shop of the first informant. They threatened the first informant and customers in the said shop by showing sickle, broke the glasses of said shop and took away amount of Rs.5,800/-. If the applicants are released on bail, they may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application. 6.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The applicants are behind bars for more than one year. There is no progress in the trial. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has been filed. It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The applicants be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 84 of 2025 registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik,

on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- each, on furnishing 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. 7.

The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of. 8.

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.

9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)