Suprim Raju Kale v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2026 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Suprim Raju Kale ..Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ..Respondent by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.04.20 13:29:25 +0530 _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni,APP for Respondent-State.
API Madhumati Shinde, Pimpri Police Station, Pune present. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 16th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State.
2.
By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 495 of 2024 registered with Pimpari Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 341, 504, 506 a/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)(3) r/w. 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, Section 3 & 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (for short 'MCOCA'). 3.
It is prosecution's case that on 25/05/2024, when the first informant was going in his car along with his friend and sister, at that time
Applicant and co-accused intercepted his car and tried to assault him with cement blocks. He has also threatened the first informant with sickle on the ground of old dispute.
4.
It is contentions of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the co-accused having similar allegations, have been released on bail and hence, applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of principle of parity and requested to allow the application.
5.
It is contention of learned APP that Applicant is the member of crime syndicate. He tried to assault the first informant with cement blocks and threatened the first informant with sickle. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the bail application.
6.
I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.
7.
No injury is caused to the first informant due to the assault by the Applicant. The co-accused, having similar allegations, has been released on bail and hence, Applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity. Applicant is behind bars for more than two years. There is no progress in the trial.
8.
Considering these facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The Applicant- Suprim Raju Kale be released on bail in Crime No. 495 of 2024 registered with Pimpari Police Station, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall not enter in Pimpri Chinchwad jurisdiction till recording of evidence of the first informant, his friend, sister and eye witnesses.
(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (v) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.
(vi) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)