Allowed

Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Mar 2022IA/762/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal interim application filed pursuant to a pending bail appeal, the High Court of Bombay allowed the application, suspended the applicant's original sentence, and directed his release on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal subject to furnishing a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Interim Application allowed; sentence suspended pending appeal; applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a recognised bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties.

Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2022.03.22 17:41:21 +0530

¶2

(4) IA-762-2020.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 762 OF 2020
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2022

¶5

Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde: Applicant/Org.Acc.No.4.
Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra: Respondent

¶7

Ms. Payoshi Roy i/b Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the Applicant.
Mr. A A Palkar, APP, for Respondent/state.

¶8

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,

¶9

SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ
DATE :22nd MARCH, 2022

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1This is an Application filed by the Applicant, who is original

¶12

accused No.4, for releasing him on bail in C.R. No.172 of 2013 registered at
Ghatkopar Police Station.

¶13

2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the
learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State.

¶14

3At the outset the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
invites attention of this court to the order dated 8th September 2020 passed by
this Court (Coram : Prasanna B. Varale & V. G. Bisht, JJ), and in particular
paragraph 5 thereof, and submits that by the said order this Court granted bail
to co-accused viz. Naresh @ Rakesh Chandrakant Kotwale, though role

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

lgc

¶17

(4) IA-762-2020.odt

¶18

attributed to him is that he gave a blow to the victim by using spanner. It is
submitted that as per prosecution case, the present Applicant did not assault
the victim but assaulted PW-2 Babu Saylu Jilhapuram. It is submitted that the
Applicant is in jail since last 7 years. The learned counsel for the Applicant
submits that though the co-accused were granted bail by the Trial Court, the
present Applicant did not apply for bail before the Trial Court. It is therefore
submitted that the present Applicant is entitled to be released on bail during
pendency of Appeal.

¶19

4On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the
Respondent/State invites our attention to the reasoning given by the Trial
Court in the impugned judgment, and submits that the Applicant may not be
enlarged on bail.

¶20

5We have considered the rival submissions. With the able assitance
of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned APP
appearing for the Respondent/State, we have carefully perused the order dated
8th September 2020 passed by this Court (Coram : Prasanna B. Varale & V. G.
Bisht, JJ), and in particular paragraph 5 thereof which reads thus :-

¶21

“5 On perusal of the material placed before this court and, more particularly, in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge reflected in the order dated 12^th January 2015 in Bail Application No.2076 of 2014, we find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

lgc

¶24

(4) IA-762-2020.odt

¶25

counsel. It is also not disputed by the learned APP that
the applicant/appellant had misused the liberty granted
to him and followed the directions/conditions imposed
upon him vide order dated 12th January 2015. It is also
not in dispute that the role attributed to the
applicant/appellant is of use of a spanner for giving blow
to the victim and the fact remains that the death of the
victim is a result of a knife injury and that particular
weapon was carried by another accused and not by the
present applicant/appellant.”

¶26

6Apart from that, prima facie it appears that the Applicant did not

¶27

assault the victim but assaulted PW-2 Babu Saylu Jilhapuram. In that view of
the matter, the Application of the Applicant for bail deserves to be considered.
Hence the following order :-

¶28

:ORDER:

¶29

1] Criminal Interim Application No.762 of 2020 is allowed.

¶30

2] The sentence of the Applicant stands suspended till the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal.

¶31

3] During the pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.285
of 2022, the Applicant - Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P R Bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty Thousand only) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

¶32

4] Criminal Interim Application No.762 of 2002 is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J]

¶34

[S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶35

3 of 3

¶36

lgc

Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala @ Takalya Naresh Gangurde 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

Harichandra @ Hari Motiram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Ganesh Anmappa@Hanmantappa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balwant @ Balu Dyandev Ghag Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Anmappa@Hanmantappa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra