Bombay High Court
Ravi Murti Tevar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40998
Shivgan 17-BA-2179-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2971 OF 2024
Ravi Murti Tevar ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr Kamlesh N Gujar, for the Applicant.
Mr Kiran C Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr A R Pathan, PSI attached to Sion Police Station,Mumbai
present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 26th SEPTEMBER 2025
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with FIR No.95 of 2019 registered with the Sion Police
Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections
395, 397, 342, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and
3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,
1999 ('MCOC' for short).
Page 1 of 5
th
26 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:35:41 :::
Shivgan 17-BA-2179-2024.doc
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Complainant
was a manager of Pratishtha Wine Shop opposite Santosh
Hotel in Sion, Mumbai. His task was to collect the money
from the wine shop and deposit the same at Amrit Bar, Sion,
Mumbai after closing the shop at night. On 26 th March 2019,
after having collected the sale proceeds of the day, the
Complainant wrapped an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- in a red
colour plastic pack and placed it in the dicky of his motor-
cycle. He and his servant were proceeding towards Amrit Bar
and reached the said location at about 11.40 pm. The
Complainant was thus, just reaching towards the plastic bag
kept in his dicky when he was surrounded by several
unknown persons. One of the unknown assailants pulled out
the pistol and threatened the Complainant to give the said bag
of money to him. The servant ran away in panic. The second
assailant tried to grab the money bag but the Complainant
resisted. During the scuffle, another assailant hit the hand of
the Complainant with a 'koyta' (Sickle) and was successful in
snatching the money bag. All of them ran away towards the
Page 2 of 5
th
26 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:35:41 :::
Shivgan 17-BA-2179-2024.doc
direction of the road. When the Complainant shouted for help,
people from other shops came running. They identified the
Honda City/Maruti Esteem car in which unknown assailants
fled. Ultimately, the Complainant made a police complaint
pursuant to which the said FIR was registered.
3. The Applicant filed a Bail Application in Special MCOC
Court and by an order dated 23rd November 2022, the said
Bail Application was rejected. In these circumstances, the
Applicant has approached this Court for the reliefs as prayed.
4. At the very outset, Mr Kamlesh Gujar, learned counsel
for the Applicant, has tendered an order dated 10 th March
2025 passed by this Court in the bail application of co-
accused. This Court has enlarged the co-accused on bail on
certain conditions. He submits that the role attributed to the
co-accused, who has been released on bail, is exactly similar
to that of the Applicant. Hence, on the principle of parity, the
present Applicant also deserves to be released on bail.
Page 3 of 5
th
26 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:35:41 :::
Shivgan 17-BA-2179-2024.doc
5. On the last date of hearing, when I went through the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench granting bail to the co-
accused, it transpired that only Section 397 of the IPC was
brought to the notice of the Court, as being charged against
the accused. It was perhaps not pointed out that accused are
charged even with Section 395 of the IPC, which carried
maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The learned APP
had thus, sought time to seek modification of the said order.
6. Accordingly, it appears that the APP moved the Co-
ordinate Bench by a praecipe for Speaking to the Minutes of
the order dated 10th March 2025. Accordingly, by an order
dated 18th July 2025, the Co-ordinate Bench added the
sentence as follows:
"Section 395 of IPC provides punishment with
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
7. The Court was not moved to cancel the bail order of the
co-accused.
Page 4 of 5
th
26 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:35:41 :::
Shivgan 17-BA-2179-2024.doc
8. In these circumstances, on the principle of parity, I am
inclined to grant bail to the present Applicant and it is ordered
as under:
ORDER
(i) The Applicant- Ravi Murti Tevar be released on bail in Crime No.95 of 2019 registered with Sion Police Station, Mumbai, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order;
(iv) The Applicant shall attend concerned Police Station as and when required;
(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date:
2025.09.26 18:17:42 +0530 Page 5 of 5 th 26 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:35:41 :::