Rane

1/6

BA -2738-2021

O ctober 25,2021.

IN THE HIG H C O U RT O F JU D IC A TU RE A T BO M BA Y

C RIM INA L A PPELLA TE JU RIS D IC TIO N

BA IL A PPLIC A TIO N NO . 2738 O F 2021

Rahul Jayprakash S harm a

@ A kash @ RJ

.....A pplicant

V /s.

The S tate of M aharashtra

(at the instance of S akinaka

Police S tation vide C .R. No.733

of 2018 now registered w ith D C B,

C ID , U nit X, as FIR No.3/2019)

.....Respondent

* * * *

M r. V inod Kashid, A dvocate for the applicant.

M r. G hanshyam U padhay, A dvocate for the Intervenor.

M r. Y.M . Nakhaw a, A PP for S tate.

C oram : S andeep K. S hinde, J.

C losed for orders O n : 21 ^st O ctober, 2021.

Pronounced O n : 25 ^th O ctober, 2021.

P.C . :

1.

Heard M r. Kashid, learned C ounsel for the

applicant, M r. Nakhaw a, A PP for the S tate and M r. U padhyay

for the com plainant.

Rane

2/6

BA -2738-2021

O ctober 25,2021.

2.

It is third bail application. First bail application

w as rejected on 5 ^th D ecem ber, 2019. In consideration of the

facts of the case and the role attributed to the applicant

w hile rejecting the first bail application, the trial C ourt w as

requested to conclude the trial, preferably before 31 ^st M ay,

2020 reserving liberty to the applicant to m ove to the C ourt

for bail in case the trial is not concluded before 31 ^st M ay,

2020. Pursuant to the liberty granted, second application

w as m oved. How ever, since due to the C ovid-19 pandem ic,

trial could not be concluded. It w as assured by the S tate

that, the trial w ould be concluded on/or before 15 ^th June,

2021. A lthough, the trial has com m enced, prosecution has

exam ined four w itnesses till date, out of w hich tw o w itness

turned unfriendly to prosecution. Yet about 38 w itnesses are

to be exam ined.

2.

Inform ant-eye-w itness, reported that, road rage

led to incident, w herein Jeetendra M ishra (accused no.1) and

U m esh @ Thakur S ingh (accused no.2) inflicted repeated

blow s on the person of the deceased, M anoj D ubey w ith a

w eapon like sw ord. How ever, it is prosecution’s case that, the

Rane

3/6

BA -2738-2021

O ctober 25,2021.

applicant and the co-accused conspired to elim inate M anoj

D ubey, m em ber of another political party. O n, 21 ^st O ctober,

2018 in evening, deceased had been to the house of the

applicant in intoxicated stated and m isbehaved and

expressed his displeasure over the m essages posted

against him on social m edia. Thus, applicant w as persistently

feeling ill for the m isbehaviour of deceased and therefore

allegedly conspired w ith co-accused to elim inate M anoj

D ubey. Prosecution, relied on a transcript of telephonic

conversation betw een applicant and one, S hubham Patil had

on 21 ^st O ctober, 2021 before the incident at 22:18 hrs.

Relying on the transcript, prosecution w ould contend that,

applicant anxious to harm M anoj D ubey and retaliate

aggressively. Prosecution has also relied on the statem ent of

one, V ipul S anju S ingh, w ho allegedly stated that the

applicant facilitated assailants by providing a knife. Thus, it

is prosecution’s case that, the applicant conspired w ith the

co-accused to elim inate M anoj D ubey.

3.

A dm ittedly, the com plainant w itnesseth the

incident of m urder of M anoj D ubey com m itted by accused

Rane

4/6

BA -2738-2021

O ctober 25,2021.

nos. 1 and 2 w ith sw ord and not by knife allegedly provided by

the applicant. A day after the incident, w hen supplem entary

statem ent of the com plainant w as recorded, he w ould state

that accused no.2 inflicted the blow on the abdom en of the

deceased w ith, knife and not w ith a sw ord. This statem ent

contradicts first report and also lacks corroboration.

4.

A lthough the trial has com m enced, till date, the

prosecution has exam ined only four w itnesses and yet about

38 w itnesses are to be exam ined.