Sachin Mahadeo Gejage Vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

 37-ba-690-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 690 OF 2021

¶5

Sachin Mahadeo Gejage.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Prashant R. Suryavanshi i/b. Gajanan M. Savagave for
Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:22th MARCH, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No. 296 of 2019 registered at Yavat police
station, Pune, under sections 395, 365, 347 and 413 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Subsequently, section 3(1)(ii) and
3(4) of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
were added. The applicant was arrested on 01/04/2019 and since
then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

Gokhale

¶13

 37-ba-690-21.odt

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

sheet is already filed.

¶16

2.Heard Shri. Prashant Suryavanshi, learned counsel for
the applicant and Shri. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

¶17

3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is
lodged by one Ramprasad Rathod on 28/03/2019. He has stated
that, he was a driver with Shridev Transport company. On
25/03/2019 he had loaded his truck from Rajasthan. He had
loaded 31 ton of wheat. He was accompanied by another driver
Nandlal Thakur. They were travelling towards Goa for unloading
that truck in Goa. On 26/03/2019, at about 9:30p.m. they were
intercepted by a Wagon R car. Three persons got down from the
car. One person entered the truck from his side. The others entered
from the other side. He was pushed aside. They started driving the
truck. The mobile phones of the complainant and his companion
were removed. The truck was driven for some distance, then the
informant and Nandlal were made to sit in the Wagon R car. The
truck was taken away. The informant and Nandlal were taken to
various places during night and on the next day morning both of
them were left at a secluded spot near Baramati. After that they

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

 : 3 : 37-ba-690-21.odt

¶20

approached the employees at Toll Plaza. Then the truck owner was
informed. Thereafter the police were informed and F.I.R. was
lodged.

¶21

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the
applicant is in custody since 30/07/2019 and, therefore, bail
should be granted to him. He does not have antecedents and the
charge-sheet is already filed. Therefore, no further purpose will be
served by keeping him in custody.

¶22

5.Learned APP opposed this application. He relied on
identification parade of the applicant. He submitted that the
confessional statement recorded of co-accused Sagar Chavan also
makes a reference to the role played by the present applicant.

¶23

6.I have considered these submissions and with the
assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused the charge-
sheet. The informant’s version is supported by the statement of
Nandlal Thakur who was another driver in the same truck. He has
given narration of the incident in the same fashion as narrated by
the first informant in the F.I.R. After arrest of the accused, both
these witnesses were asked to identify the suspects. The

¶24

3 of 4

¶25

 : 4 : 37-ba-690-21.odt

¶26

identification parade was held on 26/07/2019. In that parade,
both these witnesses have identified the present applicant. The
applicant was arrested immediately after the incident. This is a
seriously incriminating piece of evidence against the present
applicant. The applicant is facing offence punishable under MCOC
Act. In the confessional statement of accused Sagar, it is mentioned
that the applicant was with Sagar during the actual incident,
Sagar’s statement shows that both of them had even tried to sell
the wheat at Natepote. Thus, there is sufficient evidence against
the present applicant showing his complicity in the present
offence. No case for bail is made out.

¶27

7.The application is rejected.

¶28

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶29

4 of 4

Sachin Mahadeo Gejage v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Mahadeo Gejage 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

Pravin Madhukar Kharde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilkantheswar Siddheshwar Dhamame Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Narayan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Malhari Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subol Jotinder Debnath Vs the State of Maharashtra