Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: In an application for bail for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 307, 326, 323, 141, 143, 144, 147, 149 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, MS Karnik, J. found him entitled to be enlarged on bail and ordered accordingly.

Factual Background

There were 11 accused in the instant case with FIR dated 16-09-2021, and the applicant was arrested on 31-07-2022. The incident pertains to a group of people possessing weapons attacking the deceased and complainant, wherein, the applicant had a steel pipe. The Prosecution alleged that the applicant was a member of the organized crime syndicate headed by another co-accused, and in support of the same, details of another registered crime were shown having commonality of offence.

Court’s Analysis

The Court perused the statements of eyewitnesses which revealed about applicant being in company of other accused, and his role in the instant matter pertained to being armed with a steel rod, while the co-accused were actual assailants. When the deceased and complainant tried to flee in autorickshaw, the applicant pulled the complainant and hit the autorickshaw with a steel pipe.

The Court considered the role pertaining to the applicant and him being a 22-years-old at the relevant time, the Court found him entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hinting at the other FIR mentioned by the Prosecution, the Court looked at the Trial Court’s observation that the applicant’s name was not prima facie mentioned, nor was the exact role of the applicant mentioned in the FIR, and there was no recovery of any weapon in that offence.

Considering that the applicant had been in custody for more than 1 year and 7 months, the Court clarified that the rigours of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act could be overcome. However, the Court proposed to impose stringent conditions while enlarging the applicant on bail. While hinting towards the State Counsel’s submission regarding applicant along with the gang-leader and other members having created a ‘reign of terror in the area of Pune’, the Cout took note of the investigation being completed and chargesheet having been filed, opined that “if the condition of residing outside Pune district during the pendency of trial is imposed on the applicant, it is unlikely that the applicant will commit any offence during the pendency of the trial.” The Court imposed a few conditions for bail and accordingly disposed of the instant application.

[Rutik v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 833, decided on 14-03-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Applicant: Advocate Sana Raees Khan, Advocate Aditya Parmar, Advocate Abhijeet Singh, Advocate Ruchita Rajpurohit

For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

penal code, 1860

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.