SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
UTTAM MAHAJAN GHUNAWAT – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
BA 1103/2022



Advocates:
['OSTWAL ABHAYKUMAR DILIP', '', 'SYED AZIZODDIN R', 'COPY SERVED ON P P']

1103.22BA+.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1103 OF 2022

Uttam Mahajan Ghunawant

Age : 45 years, Occ : Business,

Resident of Keligawhan, Rejewadi,

Tal: Badnapur, Dist : Jalna,

Maharashtra

(Applicant is presently lodged

in Jalna Central Jail, Jalna and

was shifted to Harsool Central Jail,

Aurangabad for MCOCA trial before

Ld. Special Judge, (MCOCA) Aurangabad)

..APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

The State of Maharashtra

Through the Police Inspector,

Badnapur Police Station, Tal : Badnapur,

Dist. Jalna, Maharashtra

..RESPONDENT

WITH

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 584 OF 2022

Rajsing @ Kuldeepsing Shamsing Kalani

age : 28 years, Occ : Business,

R/o MHADA colony, T.V. Centre, Jalna

..APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

The State of Maharashtra

through Police Inspector,

Badnapur Police Station,

Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.

..RESPONDENT

WITH

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1286 OF 2022

Gautam S/o Madhukar Sonune

age : 32 years, Occ : Private service,

R/o Shelgaon, Ta. Badnapur,

Dist. Jalna.

..APPLICANT

1103.22BA+.odt

2

-VERSUS-

The State of Maharashtra

through Police Inspector,

Badnapur Police Station,

Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna

..RESPONDENT

Mr.A.D. Ostwal a/w Mr.Syed A.R., advocate for

applicant in BA no.1103/2022

Mr.S.A. Gaikwad, advocate for applicant in B.A.

Nos.584/2022 and 1286/2022.

Mr.K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.

...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

RESERVED ON : 29th NOVEMBER, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 21st DECEMBER, 2022

ORDER :-

1.

The applicants have been arraigned as

accused in crime No.248/2019 registered at

Badnapur Police Station, Jalna, Dist. Jalna, for

the offences punishable under section 302, 307,

120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the

I.P.C.”), under section 3/25 of the Indian Arms

Act and under section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999

(for short, “MCOCA Act”).

2.

The alleged incident happened on 7th October,

2019. The deceased was a labour contractor. It

has been alleged against the applicants that in

the year 2017, they had threatened the deceased

1103.22BA+.odt

3

not to take labour supply contract. The accused

attempted to commit the murder of deceased. Hence

crime No.135/2017, for the offences punishable

under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of the I.P.C.

was registered. When the incident happened, the

said case was pending. The deceased was

continuously threatened. One person used to be

with the deceased was also assaulted and

threatened not to live with the deceased. The

deceased was assaulted in Pan Shop. The

assailants came with masks. The report was lodged

on the next day of the incident.

3.

Considering the antecedents to the discredit

of the applicants, the Additional Director

General of Police (L & O), Maharashtra State,

Mumbai granted sanction to prosecute the

applicants under the provisions of MCOCA Act.

4.

This is a third Bail Application of Uttam

Mahajan Ghunawant. His earlier bail applications

were rejected after considering the material

placed before the Court. Applicant – Uttam is

claiming the bail on the ground that the presence

of the applicant on the spot of the incident was

suspicious. The applicant was granted bail in

another crime registered at the instance of the

deceased. The statement of witness Manju Raosaheb

Ghayal is contradictory. The statement of

co-accused Pratik Mlind Hivrale under section 164

1103.22BA+.odt

4

of the Code of Criminal Procedure also appears

not true. The confessional statements of

Sumersing and Dadu are inadmissible. In a CCTV

footage at Beer Bar, the applicant is not seen.

There is no iota of evidence and legally

admissible direct or indirect evidence to connect

the applicant with the alleged offence. There was

no charge-sheet against the applicant more than

one. Hence, the provisions of MCOCA Act would not

attract. There is inordinate delay in completing

the trial and there is no possibility of

commencement and completion of trial in near

future. The ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top