Arvind @ Sonya Ramesh Kale v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1471 OF 2026 Arvind @ Sonya Ramesh Kale ....Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent ____________________________________________________________ by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.04.23 16:23:40 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Priyal G. Sarda a/w MrShubham S. Sane, for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.

Ms.Madhumati Shinde, API, Pimpri Police Station, Pune. ____________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 22nd APRIL 2026 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2.

The learned APP tendered affidavit-in-reply, it is taken on record.

3.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25)(27) of Arms Act and Section 37(1)(3), Section 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. 4.

It is prosecution's case that on 5th December 2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant with sickle with the intention to kill her. The applicant and co-accused also tried to run over the niece of the first informant with motorcycle with the intention to kill her. 5.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant was not injured in the said assault. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and three months. There is no progress in the trial and to allow the application.

6.

It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant has gang leader. The applicant has three antecedents. He tried to assault the first informant with sickle with the intention to kill her. The incident was committed along with a gang leader. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he requested to reject the application.

7.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. Though there are allegations of attempt to kill the first informant, it appears that the first informant was not injured in the said assault. The applicant is behind bars for more than one year and three months and there is no progress in the trial, Considering these facts, I

pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1087 of 2024 registered with Pimpri Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Pimpri Police Station until the recording of the evidence of the first informant, except for attending the court dates. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly 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.)