Allowed

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2016APPLN/5293/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 5293 of 2016, the High Court at Aurangabad considered a bail plea filed after the filing of a charge-sheet for offences of extortion and ransacking. The court allowed bail on security of Rs. 25,000, noting that co-accused were already released and an amount was paid to the informant.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed and the applicant was released on bail on security of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, subject to directives not to tamper with evidence or commit further offences.

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Cri. Appln. No. 5293 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Criminal Application No. 5293 of 2016

¶5

District : Ahmednagar

¶6

Ravi @ Ravindra s/o. Raju Bhalerao,
Age : 29 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Newasa Phata,
Taluka : Newasa,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicant.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Investigation Officer,
Newasa Police Station,
Taluka : Newasa,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondent.

¶9

............

¶10

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶11

Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.

¶12

Mr. Vijay B. Jagtap, Advocate, appearing for the original informant (Not party to the Application).

¶13

............

¶14

CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.

¶15

DATE : 26TH OCTOBER 2016

¶16

ORAL ORDER:

¶17

The applicant / accused in Crime No. I-
133/2016 registered with Newasa Police Station,

¶18

(2)Cri. Appln. No. 5293 of 2016

¶19

Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, for offences
punishable under Sections 395, 384, 324, 427, 295A,
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by
this application, is seeking his release on bail
after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶20

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant / accused. He argued that considering the
nature of offence, after filing of the charge-sheet,
further pre-trial detention of the applicant is not
warranted. The learned Counsel further argued that
co-accused in this crime are released on bail by this
Court and this Court on 02.08.2016 had noted
willingness of applicants in Criminal application No.
3418 of 2016 and Criminal Application No. 3423 of
2016 to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the
Investigation Officer. Subsequently, this Court
while disposing of those applications, had noted that
the amount deposited by applicants therein was handed
over to the first informant. Then those applicants
were released on bail by this Court by order dated
05.08.2016. This position is not disputed by the
learned Counsel appearing for the first informant as
well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. With
this, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant had paid an amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- to the first informant. Mr. Jagtap, the
learned Counsel appearing for the first informant, is
not disputing this fact and has stated that the first

¶21

(3)Cri. Appln. No. 5293 of 2016

¶22

informant has received an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-
from the present applicant.

¶23

3.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed
the application by contending that the crime in
question is serious and such private deal cannot be
accepted to release the applicant on bail. The
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor drew my attention to
the FIR lodged by Mahendra s/o. Ram Thore as well as
statements of eye witnesses to point out that the
crime in question is serious.

¶24

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the
informant submits that he has no objection for
releasing the applicant / accused on bail.

¶25

5.I have considered the rival submissions and
perused the charge-sheet. According to the

¶26

prosecution case, as reflected from the charge-sheet,
accused persons including the present applicant
initially demanded ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the
first informant in order to enable him to run the
hotel business at Newasa bifurcation. Subsequently
on 28.05.2016, after having dinner at that hotel, the
applicant and his associates ransacked the hotel
causing loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- to
the informant. It is further averred that they have
looted cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the hotel.

¶27

(4)Cri. Appln. No. 5293 of 2016

¶28

6.The investigation of the crime in question
is already over. Co-accused in this case had
deposited an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the
Investigation Officer and subsequently that amount
was transferred to the first informant. Thereafter
this Court, as seen from the order dated 05.08.2016,
passed in Criminal Application No. 3418 of 2016 and
Criminal Application No. 3423 of 2016, was pleased to
release co-accused on bail.

¶29

7.As investigation of the crime in question is
over, I see no reason to refuse bail to the present
applicant.

¶30

8.Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶31

(a)The Application is allowed.

¶32

(b)The applicant / accused, in the above crime, be
released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs. 25,000/- and on furnishing one or more
solvent sureties of the like amount.

¶33

(c)As conditions of this order, the applicant /
accused shall abide by the following directives :-

¶34

(i) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any persons acquainted with the

¶35

(5)Cri. Appln. No. 5293 of 2016

¶36

facts of the case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing such facts either to the
Court or to any police officer.

¶37

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence in any manner and
shall cooperate the learned trial Judge in
expeditious disposal of the trial against
him.

¶38

(iii) The applicant shall not repeat
commission of similar type of offences in
future.

¶39

(d)The Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.

¶40

( A.M. BADAR )
 JUDGE

¶41

 puranik / CRIAPPLN5293.16

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Dagdu Bhokre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akashay S/O Rajanikant Makasare Vs the State of Maharashtra Q

Krishna Rupsing Rupsen Rathod. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Sujit @ Nana Bharat Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Sou. Sunita Vijaya Karhale. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.