Allowed

Sunny Vitthal Bhangare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Mar 2022IA/438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application for bail pending criminal appeal. Relying on principles of parity and consistent treatment of co-accused already granted bail during the same appeal, the court directed the immediate release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant directed to be released on bail pending appeal on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties.

Sunny Vitthal Bhangare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 1 / 5 05-IA-438-22-IN-APEAL-792-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2022
IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.792 OF 2021

¶5

Sunny Vitthal Bhangare.... Applicant
 (Orig. Accused No.3)

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra... Respondent

¶8

Mr. Piyush Toshnival a/w Mr.Amit i/b. Mr.Aniket Nikam, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE: 24th MARCH, 2022.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. This is an Application preferred by the original accused

¶13

No.3 Sunny Vitthal Bhangare for his release on bail pending

¶14

Appeal.

¶15

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2022.03.25 16:08:15 +0530

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Piyush Toshnival, for the
Applicant and Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, learned APP for the State.

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

 2 / 5 05-IA-438-22-IN-APEAL-792-21.odt

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant invited our attention
to the order passed in Interim Application No.2340 of 2021 and
Interim Application No.93 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.792 of
2021 dated 08/12/2021 and 12/01/2022 filed by accused No.4
Shobha Vitthal Bhangare and accused No.5 Monika Vitthal
Bhangare respectively who are granted bail during pendency of
the Appeal.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
role attributed to the present Applicant is exactly the same and
on the ground of parity, he deserves to be released on bail.

¶21

5. Learned APP though opposed this application, could
not point out differentiating features between the roles of the
Applicant and the co-accused who are granted bail during the
pendency of this Appeal.

¶22

6. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, we

¶23

have perused the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The prosecution

¶24

 3 / 5 05-IA-438-22-IN-APEAL-792-21.odt

¶25

story is based on evidence of eyewitnesses. P.W.1 Vikas Baburao
Sawant, is the brother of the deceased Ganesh. While describing
the incident, he has stated that Shobha, Monika and the present
Applicant had held hands of the deceased Ganesh and accused
No.2 Ganesh Bhangare stabbed the deceased on his chest. The
accused Vitthal Bhangare assaulted the deceased with rod on his
head. The present Applicant, Monika and Shobha assaulted the
deceased with pieces of tiles on his head.

¶26

7. P.W.6 Baburao Sukhdev Sawant was the father of the

¶27

deceased Ganesh. While describing the incident, he has stated
that accused No.2 Ganesh Bhangare held the deceased and gave
blow of knife on his chest. Vitthal Bhangare assaulted him on his
head with iron rod. The present Applicant, Monika and Shobha
assaulted the deceased on his head with tiles. He has not stated
that the Applicant had held the deceased when the other
accused Ganesh Bhangare stabbed the deceased.

¶28

 4 / 5 05-IA-438-22-IN-APEAL-792-21.odt

¶29

8. P.W.10 Nilesh Bharat Bhagat has described that Vitthal

¶30

Bhangare stabbed the deceased on the chest with knife and the
family members of Vitthal had caught hold of the deceased. He
has not specifically named the present Applicant.

¶31

9. P.W.14 Dnyaneshwar has deposed that two ladies and
one gent had held the deceased and accused Ganesh Bhangare
stabbed him and Vitthal Bhangare had assaulted the deceased
with iron rod.

¶32

10. Thus, in all these depositions, the role ascribed to
Shobha, Monika and the present Applicant are exactly the same.
By the previous orders, Shobha and Monika are granted bail.
Therefore on the ground of parity, the Applicant also deserves
the same treatment. The Applicant was on bail during the trial
and he has not misused the liberty. Therefore this application
can be allowed.

¶33

11. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶34

 5 / 5 05-IA-438-22-IN-APEAL-792-21.odt

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶37

(ii) During the pendency and final hearing of Criminal Appeal No.792 of 2021, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶38

(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

 (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶40

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Sunny Vitthal Bhangare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Vitthal Bhangare 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rakib Suleman Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Rakib Suleman Vs State of Maharashtra

Sadanand Vinayak Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Vijay Bhilare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devendra Chandrakant Bhoir and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manda Harishchandra Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra