KARAD TALUKA-PS

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2164 OF 2024 The State of Maharashtra. … ------------------- Respondent V/s. Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla Applicant. Shri Farzan Shaikh i/b Kamil Sayyed, Advocate for Applicant. Shri Shreeram S. Chaudhari, APP for the State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2024. PC: Heard. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 08/07/2024. The learned A.P.P. waives notice for the Respondent-State. RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT Digitally signed by RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT Date: 2024.06.14 14:49:18 +0530 (ANIL S. KILOR, J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2164 OF 2024 Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 8th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 29/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2164 OF 2024 Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla, Age 34 years, Occ.Service, R/o.Hazarmachi, Tal.Karad, Dist.Satara. (Presently in Satara District Prison) Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Sameer M.Mangaonkar, APP, for State. Mr.Mahesh B.Shinde, P.C, Karad City Police, present. CORAM : ANIL S.KILOR, J. DATE : 21st August 2024 PC : Heard. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.1191 of 2023 registered with Karad City Police Station, District Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for Applicant submits that there are discrepancies in the CCTV footage transcription and the statements of witnesses. It is submitted that the first informant did not name the Applicant. The FIR was registered against total 10 accused, out of which four were known and six unknown accused persons. It is submitted that version of the eye witness is doubtful and since charge sheet has been filed, further custody of the Applicant is not necessary. Accordingly he prays for grant of bail. MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2024.08.22 18:12:26 +0530 Learned APP strongly opposed the application and grant of bail. I have gone through the charge sheet and relevant material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is evident that seeing the CCTV footage the Applicant was identified by the eye witness and there is sufficient evidence to show that at the time of incidence Applicant was present with other co-accused. The CCTV footage shows that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased. The allegations are of unlawful assembly with common intention. In the circumstances though there may be some discrepancies in the CCTV footage transcription and the statement of witness, however, presence of the Applicant at the spot with common intention cannot be prima facie disputed in view of sufficient incriminating material against the Applicant. In the circumstances since the offence is very serious, I do not find the present case as a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly it is rejected. Trial is expedited. Liberty is granted to move afresh before Trial Court after one year, if there is no progress in trial. Learned counsel for Applicant undertakes to place this order on the record of Trial Court within two weeks from today. (ANIL S.KILOR, J.) MST

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 … Chinmay Prashant Jagtap .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent None for the applicant. Smt. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2020 P.C:- Re-notify after Christmas Vacation. SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J Wakodikar

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 ..... Chinmay Prashant Jagtap ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents ….... Mr. Prashant Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State-Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 05th FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C. : . At the request of learned APP, stand over to 16th March (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents ….... Mr.Pravin Mengane h/f Prashant P. Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 27/04/2021. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Pravin P. Mengane i/b Prashant P Patil for applicant. P.N.Dabholkar APP for Respondent/state. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT J DATE : 22nd November, 2021 P.C. : S. O. to 06/12/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. Sandeep Shinde a/w Mr. Pravin Mengane i/b Prashant P Patil for Applicant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar APP for Respondent State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT J DATE : 6th December, 2021 P.C. : Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde a/w Mr. Pravin Mengane i/b Mr. Prashant Patil, for the Applicant. Ms. P. N.Dabholkar, APP, for the State-Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. RESERVED ON : 6th December, 2021. PRONOUNCED ON : 15th December, 2021. PC:- . The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 476 of 2017 registered with Karad Taluka Police Station, District-Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 It is the case of prosecution that informant is uncle of deceased Prathamesh Sanjay Sankpal, who was a student of 12th standard Rekha Patil 1/5 studying in Y.C.College of Science at Vidyanagar, Karad. The applicant and two more students, who are stated to be juveniles in conflict with law, were also studying in the same college. On 17/11/2017 the deceased left his house for college as there was examination but did not return. 3 The prosecution alleges that the relations between the deceased and the applicants and other co-accused were not cordial and therefore, on 17/11/2017 at about 4-00 p.m. they committed murder of the deceased in the area known as 'Bhatki Shiva' near railway line in the vicinity of village Parle, Taluka Karad by means of knife and scythe. Accordingly FIR came to be lodged. 4 Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that there was college rivalry between the deceased and the applicant and another. Although it is alleged that the deceased was assaulted by means of a knife on head, face and neck but those injuries did not match with the findings of Postmortem Report. Although the charge-sheet has been filed but trial is yet to be commenced. Having regard to the circumstance and as also age of the applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. Rekha Patil 2/5 5 Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions by contending that there is statement of eye witness, namely, Yogesh Tanaji Shedge who had witnessed the incident and even the deceased himself had confided to Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar on 17/11/2017 that he is likely to be beaten. Besides, the Postmortem Report also point out the injuries sustained by the deceased which is quite in consonance with the theory of prosecution. There is no inconsistency between findings of Postmortem Report and theory of prosecution as is claimed by learned counsel for the applicant. According to learned APP, since the deceased was mercilessly killed the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6 Perused investigation papers. First of all, I may from the FIR point out that the informant has clearly stated that there were injury marks on the head and neck of the deceased by means of a sharp weapon. Column No. 17 of the Postmortem Report clearly shows that there were multiple superficial to deep incised wounds over scalp, face and neck. Thus apparently there is no inconsistency, except wound on face, between the case of prosecution and finding of the Postmortem Report as canvased before me by learned Counsel for the applicant. 7 This brings me to the statements of eye witness viz. Kiran @ Ganesh Shivaji Thorat. From the statement of this witness it is very much clear that he witnessed the whole incident. According to this witness, the hands of deceased was caught hold of by accused Vijay while the applicant took out a scythe from his sack which was given to him by accused Vijay only and then gave a blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which deceased fell down. Even thereafter the applicant gave three blows of scythe on the neck of the deceased. After the deceased died, the applicant threatened the others including the witnesses that if any of them disclosed the incident they would be similarly done to death. His statement further shows that because of threats given by the applicant and as he is of hot temperament, this witness did not tell about the incident to anybody. Incidentally, I may note from the Postmortem Report that the cause of death was " Head injury due to multiple incised wounds associated with fracture skull bone". 8 One more statement is that of Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar. It appears that on 17/11/2017 when witness had been to college for examination, deceased called him and expressed his apprehension that he would be beaten by the boys. When this witness Rekha Patil 4/5 enquired with him as to who were those boys, the deceased replied that he would tell later on. At about 3-30 p.m. this witness saw applicant and other accused and as also the deceased standing in front of them. 9 From the above, it is clear that the witness, namely, Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar had seen the applicant and other accused in the company of the deceased immediately before the incident. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased had expressed his apprehension of his being beaten at the hands of boys though he did not name those boys. However, immediately thereafter incident took place and it appears that those boys were applicant and others which is more than clear from the statement of Kiran @ Ganesh Shivaji Thorat. 10 From the above, I find that there is overwhelming evidence. The injured was brutally killed by the applicant by means of scythe. I do not find merit in the application. Hence, the following order. ORDER Bail Application No. 1031 of 2020 is rejected. REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2021.12.15 12:42:49 +0530 Rekha Patil 5/5 (V. G. BISHT, J.)