Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6327
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
AMIT BORKAR, J
Gaurav Dilip Jagtap – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Bail Application No.841 of 2023 | Bail Application No.1100 of 2023 | Bail Application No.3881 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, Mr. Abhishek Arote, Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, Mr. Sharad Kulkarni, Ms. Shilpa V. Kadam
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Mohite, Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Ms. Amit A. Palkar
Denial of bail justified by serious charges, evidence of premeditated assault, and risk of tampering with evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 120
(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 188, 216, 504, 506 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 4(25) - Bail applications rejected - Applicants charged with serious offences including attempted murder and assault - Evidence indicates premeditated assault involving bodily harm with weapons. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Court's Role in Bail - The court must evaluate whether the accused is likely to tamper with evidence and whether their release poses a threat to the victim - Given the severity of injuries inflicted and evidence against applicants, bail was not warranted. (Paras 6, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought bail after being charged with multiple criminal offences stemming from a violent altercation during a public event, resulting in severe injuries to a victim.
Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of active involvement in a brutal assault, thus denying bail to the applicants while noting the critical condition of the victim.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicants’ release on bail would pose a risk of tampering with evidence given the ongoing threat to the victim and witnesses due to their proximity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the charges, coupled with the risk of evidence tampering, justified the denial of bail despite claims of wrongful implication. The premeditated nature of the assault was evident through the evidence presented.
Result: Bail applications are rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and context for the bail application. (Para 1) |
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 8, 2023 P.C.:
1. The applicants accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 have filed present applications seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.366 of 2022 registered with Saswad Police Station for offences punishable under sections 307, 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 188, 216, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and section 4(25) of the Arms Act , 1959.
2. According to the prosecution, on 9th September 2022 there was Ganpati Visarjan procession of our mandal which started at 07:00 p.m. and by 09:00 p.m. it reached at Hundekari Chowk, Saswad. At that time, the president of the Mandal, Mayur Jagtap was telling Mandal workers to take the procession forward. At that time, namely 1) Gaurav Dilip Jagtap (Applicant) 2) Kaushik Alias Aaba Rajendra Jagtap 3) Omkar Alias Hanger Dayanand Fartade 4) Sagar Alias Ganesh Alias Depo Balasaheb Jagtap (Applicant) 5) Pushkar Alias Gopya Sunil Jagtap 6) Kunal Alias Nannya Dashrat Jagtap (Applicant) had an argument and scrimmage with the President of Ganpati Mandal, Mayur Jagtap. At that time, the brother of the President namely Vikram Alias Vikki Vilas Jagtap was present there. He tried to pacify the situation. The president told that I will leave if you don’t listen to me and he left the procession and went to his Vera lodging. At that time, Gaurav (Applicant) and Kaushik called someone and told the incident on phone. Someone was giving instruction to them on phone. When the aforesaid incident happened there were Arjun Jagtap, Gaurav Deshmukh, Sanket, Jagtap, Karan Jagtap, Akash Fadtare. Thereafter, the complainant along with Arjun Jagtap and Vikram Jagtap went to Vera Lodging. At that time, Vikram Jagtap received call from Atul Ashok Jagtap (co-accused) who asked whether they want to sort out the dispute. Saying so Atul Jagtap called Vikram Jagtap to the office of Kaushik Jagtap situated at Siddheshwar Vakhar. At night at around 10:00 p.m. complainant, Vikram Jagtap and Arjun Jagtap went to the office of Kaushik Jagtap to settle the dispute. At the said office 1) Gaurav Jagtap (Applicant) 2) Kaushik Alias Abba Rajendra Jagtap 3) Omkar Alias Hanger Dayanand Fartade 4) Sagar Alias Ganesh Alias Depo Balasaheb Jagtap (Applicant) 5) Pushkar Alias Gopya Sunil Jagtap 6) Kunal Alias Nannya Dashrat Jagtap and other five to six boys were there. That time co-accused Sagar Alias Ganesh Jagtap, Kaushik Jagtap and Omkar Fartade said to Vikram Jagtap that your brother Mayur is not the president. He doesn’t deserve to be president, your brother has become arrogant and today we will finish one of you saying they assaulted Vikram, the complainant and others. Omkar Fartade assaulted Vikram Jagtap with some sharp weapon. Gaurav Jagtap (Applicant), Kaushik Jagtap assaulted with cricket bat and Sagar Jagtap (Applicant), Pushkar Jagtap, Kunal Jagtap (Applicant) assaulted with stick and others assaulted with fists and kicks. After hearing the shouting, people around the vicinity gathered to the spot and seeing the crowd accused persons ran away with their two wheeler bike and four wheeler car. Vikram Jagtap was injured and was laying unconscious. The injured Vikram Jagtap was taken initially to Chintamani Hospital and after the primary medication he was referred to Noble Hospital.
While Vikram was receiving treatment at Chintamani Hospital at Saswad, relative of the complainant namely Vimal Vilas Jagtap called the complainant and told him that after the incident of Hundekari Chowk 1) Gaurav Dilip Jagtap (Applicant) 2) Kaushik Alias Abba Rajendra Jagtap 3) Omkar Alias Hanger Dayanand Fartade 4) Sagar Alias Ganesh Alias Depo Balasaheb Jagtap 5) Pushkar Alias Gopya Sunil Jagtap 6) Kunal Alias Nannya Dashrat Jagtap came to the relative’s house and shouted and created ruckus saying that where is your children Mayur and Vicky and they will finish them today. The relative and mother of the complainant asked
