Allowed

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Nov 2021BA/975/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Bombay allowed a bail application in an MCOCA robbery case. The bench observed that the gang leader had been released on bail, creating a parity argument. Doubts were noted regarding the late mention of weapons and the validity of the identification parade. The application was allowed with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail in C.R. No. 546 of 2017 on executing a bond in Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties in like amount.

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-975-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 975 OF 2020

¶5

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr.H. J. Dedhia, APP, for the State-Respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶9

 RESERVED ON : 15th November, 2021.
 PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd November, 2021.

¶10

PC:-

¶11

.The present application has been moved by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 546 of 2017
registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, District- Pune for the offences
punishable under Section 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act (‘MCOCA’ for short).

¶12

2 It is the case of prosecution that informant is a driver by profession and at the relevant time was employee of Shree Travels,

¶13

Rekha Patil 1/7

¶14

Kagal, District-Kolhapur. On 28/11/2017 his employer directed him to
take the passenger in Innova car bearing No. MH 10 AT 6700 and drop
them to Mumbai. Out of the said passengers, one passenger wanted to
return to Pune so the informant dropped the said passenger at Pune. At
about 2-00 a.m. on 29/11/2017, the informant was on Mumbai-
Banglore highway and somewhere near Bhumkar Chowk his companion
dropped him and took the Innova car with him. According to
prosecution, as informant wanted to go to Kolhapur he was searching
transportation. At about 3-00 a.m. one black Skoda heading from
Mumbai was stopped by informant. He was given lift upto Kolhapur,
however, it is alleged that the driver of the said Skoda car took ‘U’ turn.
Thereafter, it is further alleged that the persons in the said Skoda car
robbed the informant of his mobile headset of Rs.10,000/- and cash of
Rs.1,000/-, driving licence, Voting Card and PAN Card. The informant
accordingly lodged the report.

¶15

3It further appears from the record that the informant again gave
his supplementary statement on 13/12/2018 and then supplemented the
contents of FIR by stating that the persons, who was sitting next to the
driver, had brandished a weapon like Kukari at him and asked to
handover all his belongings. He further stated that another three

¶16

Rekha Patil 2/7

¶17

BA-975-2020.odt

¶18

persons ranging between age group of 25 to 30 also joined later on and
while one of them caught hold of him others assaulted and abused him
and thereafter all the accused persons left the said Skoda car.

¶19

4On the basis of said allegations, the offence was registered and
provisions of MCOCA were invoked.

¶20

5Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant, at the very outset,
submits that the gang leader in the present crime has already been
released by this Court (Coram:Bharati Dangre, J.) on 5th April, 2021 and
therefore, one of the ground is that of parity. The learned Counsel then
next submits that although the Test Identification Parade was conducted
in which the applicant was identified but the said Test Identification
Parade was held after long gap and before that the applicant was shown
to the informant in the police station. Learned Counsel invited my
attention to the statement of the informant dated 25/01/2018 to
substantiate his submission. As far as criminal antecedents are
concerned, the antecedents are same qua the main accused, who is
already released on bail. The alleged recovery was in different crime
number. For all these reasons, the applicant deserves to be released on
bail. According to learned Counsel, he is ready to abide any conditions

¶21

Rekha Patil 3/7

¶22

BA-975-2020.odt

¶23

which may be imposed by this Court.

¶24

6I have gone through the Affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Wakad Division, Pimpri Chinchwad.

¶25

7Mr. Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed
the submissions by contending that the applicant has been duly
identified by the informant in the Test Identification Parade. There are
antecedents. Therefore, the application may not be considered and at
the most, the learned Trial Court be directed to expedite the trial.

¶26

8Perused the FIR and investigation papers. Perusal of FIR would
show that the informant initially had given the description of two
unknown persons who had robbed him sans weapons. However, the
informant again gave his supplementary statement on 13/12/2018 i.e.
after more than a year and for the first time he complained of five
persons that appears to be not plausible and acceptable. For the simple
reasons, according to him, he was also assaulted by the other persons
who had also joined earlier two persons, who were in the car. Had it
been so, he immediately would have rushed to police station.

¶27

Rekha Patil 4/7

¶28

BA-975-2020.odt

¶29

9Coming to the Test Identification Parade. There is no denial from
the side of prosecution that Test Identification Parade was carried out
after a long gap. Apart from this disturbing aspect, there is again
statement of informant dated 25/01/2018 which clearly shows that on
the said date he was summoned in the police station wherein the seized
muddemal was shown to him and as also he was told the names of all
the accused. This apparently raises a doubt as to the truthfulness of the
Test Identification Parade.

¶30

10Lastly, the antecedents. Learned Counsel again invited my
attention to the chart annexed to the Sanction Order wherein main
accused at Sr. No. 4 and present applicant at Sr.No.5 have identical
criminal antecedents. I have already pointed out that the main accused
Mukesh Kantilal Chavan has already been released on bail by this Court
on 05th April, 2021. Therefore, the said antecedents qua the present
applicant will not be weighing factor in favour of prosecution.

¶31

11I also note from the Affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of police
and more particularly from para 23 wherein details of the offences
registered against the Nikhil Ravindra Bamne are given and point out
from the said paragraph that except offence at Sr. Nos.2,3,4 and 5 no

¶32

Rekha Patil 5/7

¶33

BA-975-2020.odt

¶34

other offence registered at Sr. Nos. 1,6,7,8 and 9 were taken into
consideration by the sanctioning authority which is apparent from the
Sanction Order.

¶35

12For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the application.
Hence, the following order.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i)Applicant- Nikhil Ravindra Bamane shall be released on bail in
C.R. No. 546 of 2017 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, District-
Pune, on his executing P .R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one

¶38

or more sureties in like amount.

¶39

(ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any
Police Officer.

¶40

(iii)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶41

(iv)The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer, on first
Monday of every Month between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. until the

¶42

charge is framed. After the charge is framed, it is open for the Special

¶43

Rekha Patil 6/7

¶44

BA-975-2020.odt

¶45

Court to stipulate a condition of marking presence before it so as to
ensure the presence of the applicant for trial.

¶46

(v)It is made clear that the observations made herein-above are
prima facie in nature and confined to adjudication of present Bail
Application only.

¶47

(vi)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the
Sheristedar of this Court.

¶48

(vii) The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands
disposed of accordingly.

¶49

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶50

Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA PRAKASH PATIL PRAKASH Date: PATIL 2021.11.22 13:32:24 +0530

¶51

Rekha Patil 7/7

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane 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

Shital @ Chivali Kuber @ Kubrya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Sidram Gaidhankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalit Govardhan Loya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Babulal Gajarmal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Dhanaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay @ Kalba Rambhau Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra