Bombay High Court
Ritik S/O Raju Shelke vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps, Ajni, ... on 19 January, 2026
1 22 BA 1228.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA)NO. 1228/2025
(Ritik S/o Raju Shelkar Vs. State of Maharashtra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Suita Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. D.V.Chavhan, Government Pleader assisted by Mr. A.A.
Madiwale, APP for non-applicant/State
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 19/01/2026.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and the learned APP for non-applicant
No.1/State. I have perused the record placed before me
which is in the nature of charge-sheet.
2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking
bail in connection with Crime No.262/2024 registered with
Police Station Ajni, Nagpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and
Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act ("MCOC").
2 22 BA 1228.25
3. The FIR is lodged by the father of the deceased
alleging that on 25.04.2024 at around 11.00 p.m., he was
informed by his son's friends that his son was getting
beaten by some person. When he asked to the spot, he saw
Rajat, Kartik, Nitesh and Sunanya holding weapons with
sword, knives etc. assaulting the deceased. When the
informant tried to intervene, he was also pushed down.
Therefore, the accused persons ran away. Due to various
injuries sustained by the deceased, he was declared dead
upon reaching the hospital
4. Admittedly, FIR was registered on 26.04.2024
and the charge-sheet was filed on 19.08.2024 invoking the
provisions of MCOC Act. The applicant was arrested on
08.05.2024.
5. The learned counsel of the applicant submits that
the name of the applicant does not appear in the FIR.
Even, there is no mention name of the applicant in the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") witnesses. There is also no
weapon recovered. If it is assumed that the present
applicant was present, then also there was no overt act on
3 22 BA 1228.25
his part. So far as ajat @ Chiku @ Tinku Sidharth Ganvir
is concerned, he was granted bail by this Court by order
dated 24.09.2025 in Criminal Application No. 837/2025.
The present applicant is also standing on the same footing.
She further submits that even the Trial Court granted bail
to one Rohit Shamrao Katole who was identified during
the identification parade.
6. On the other, the learned Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the application and submits that the
conditions laid in Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act for grant
of bail are not made out. There is ample evidence against
the applicant since of inception of commission of the crime.
He invited my attention to various statements, wherein the
name of the present applicant appears He also invited my
attention to the statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C., wherein three witnesses have taken name of
the present applicant, therefore he prays to reject the bail.
7. Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence,
admittedly, the applicant's name does not appear in the
FIR which was registered by father of deceased. Upon
perusal of the entire charge-sheet, only name of the
4 22 BA 1228.25
present applicant appears in the statement, however there
is no overt act on his part. Further, it could be gathered
that though in the identification parade, the applicant was
identified. This Court while passing the order has
considered the entire record and granted bail on
24.09.2025 to similarly situated person Rajat @ Chiku @
Tinku Sidharth Ganvir in Criminal Application
No.837/2025. It further appears that another accused
Rohit Shamrao Katole was also granted bail by the Special
Judge (MCOC Act) and Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Nagpur. Considering the fact that this Court has already
observed that only on the basis of Section 21 of the MCOC
Act, the bail cannot be rejected. In the present case, the
name of the present applicant does appear, however it is
very difficult to pin point the role attributable to the
applicant. Further, no overt act is attributed. Under such
circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail considering the
fact that this Court as well as Trial Court has granted bail
to simiarly situated the accused perosn on the same terms
and conditions, the present application is allowed.
5 22 BA 1228.25
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) Accused/applicant Ritik Raju Shelkar be released on bail in connection with Crime No.262 of 2024 registered with Police Station Ajni district Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, and under Sections 3(1) (ii),3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the village, where the witnesses are staying.
(iv) The applicant shall not in any way tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(v) The applicant shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall co-operate the investigating officer.
( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/01/2026 18:33:20