Bombay High Court
Bhaiya @ Rushikesh Subhash Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 April, 2023
Author: S. G. Mehare
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 927-BA-541-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2023
WITH APPLN/1446/2023 IN BA/541/2023
BHAIYA @ RUSHIKESH SUBHASH BHOSALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr, M. S. Kulkarni
APP for Respondent: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
Advocate for the complainant : Mr. N. B. Narwade
....
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 26.04.2023
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the
complainant.
2. The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 19 of 2017
registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar for
the ofences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 143,
147, 148, 149, 109, 212, 465, 468, 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 3/25, 4/25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act and
Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control
of Organized Crime Act, 1999.(MCOCA)
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::
2 927-BA-541-23.odt
3. The learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant has been arrested in the crime on
28th January 2017.
4. The report of the learned Trial Judge reveals that
the case was transferred to her Court from Nashik Court as
per the order of this Court in 2020. Her report further reveals
that the accused are moving applications for seeking
diferent reliefs from time to time. Hence, the progress in the
trial has been stalled. Her report also shows that one of the
co-accused Prashant @ Pashya is an accused in another case
had fled an application for bail and same was pending before
the same Judge. Therefore, bail applications moved by the
other co-accused below Exh. 59 and 60 were not decided. It
appears that it was incorrect practice. Both the trials were
separate and independent. Therefore, unless there was an
order clubbing the matters or trying together, the Court is
not expected to stall the progress of one case for another.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, District
Ahmednagar is directed to take care henceforth and ensure
not to stall one trial for the reason that in another trial the
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::
3 927-BA-541-23.odt
applications are fled and pending. Every case shall be dealt
with independently if not clubbed.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has claimed
bail on parity granted to one of the co-accused Pravin.
However, the role attributed to the present applicant and the
Pravin was diferent. Hence, applicant is not entitled to claim
the parity.
6. In addition to the above ground the learned
counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegations
levelled against the applicant were, after the incident
happened he along with co-accused Akshya reached on the
spot on motorbike. He was a pillion rider. In C.C.T.V footage
he has been captured but not seen doing any act. The eye
witness was not sure about the specifc role attributed to
him. The vague statement has been made that other
associates of main accused were assaulting the deceased
with bricks. He came to the Court for the frst time. He never
delayed the trial. The prosecution has listed 156 witnesses.
It will take a long time to record the evidence and complete
the trial. The applicant is behind bar for fve years. He is not
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::
4 927-BA-541-23.odt
the resident of Parner. In earlier crime registered against him
he has been granted bail. On these premises, he seeks bail.
7. The learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the application. They have
referred to the C.C.T.V footage in which the applicant has
been captured. They would submit that the applicant was
associated with the main accused. The other witnesses have
named him specifcally. One of the witnesses knew the
applicant as he was accompanying the main accused Pravin
Rasal.
8. The specifc allegations have been levelled against the
applicant that he was holding the sword in his hand and
created a terror with an intention that nobody should come to
help or rescue the deceased. The trial has not been
protracted deliberately by the prosecution. The accused
have protracted the trial. Hence, they are not entitle to bail.
They prayed to dismiss the application.
9. Considering the progress report of the learned Trial
Judge, this Court is not considering the bail of the present
applicant on the length of his languishing in jail. His bail
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::
5 927-BA-541-23.odt
application is considered on the merits. The evidence stated
above against the applicant shows that he reached on the
spot after the incident was over. He was captured in the
C.C.T.V. footage but the witnesses who saw him allegedly
assaulting the deceased with bricks, did not identify him.
10. In sum and substance, reading the statements of
the so called eye witnesses, the Court believes that the
statements are vague as regards the role attributed to the
applicant. There is a large number of the witnesses.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant and the
evidence against him, the Court is of the view that it would
not be appropriate to keep the applicant behind bar. He may
be granted bail on certain stringent conditions. Hence, the
following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant Bhaiya @ Rushikesh Subhash Bhosale be released on bail on furnishing P. B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, in aforementioned crime registered with aforementioned police station, on the following conditions :-
(a) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::
6 927-BA-541-23.odt
(b) He shall neither contact the other co-accused nor the witnesses in any mode or manner till the conclusion of the trial.
(c) He shall not involve in the similar crime.
(d) He shall attend the trial on each and every efective date.
(e) If he did not attend the trial for two consecutive dates without any substantial reasons, the prosecution may approach for cancellation of bail.
(f) Till the conclusion of the trial he shall report his presence in his town to the local police station on telephone on every Sunday, between 4.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m., except the dates of his trial.
(iii) Criminal Application No. 1446 of 2021 stands disposed of.
( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE ysk ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 19:45:40 :::