Allowed

Sanket Kailas Dhainje v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2023APEAL/616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal seeking enlargement on bail. It quashed the Special Judge's rejection of the bail application, held that the bar under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act did not apply, and granted bail citing lack of reasonable grounds for believing the appellant was guilty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail is quashed; appellant enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions.

Sanket Kailas Dhainje Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2023

¶5

Sanket Kailas Dhainje...Appellant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

The Senior Police Inspector
Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w. Mr. Malhar Pawar i/b. Mr. Nandu Pawar for
the Appellant.

¶10

Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER 2023

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

By this appeal, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 102 of 2022 registered with the

¶16

Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune for the alleged offences

¶17

1/6

¶18

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶19

punishable under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 read with Section
34 of the IPC; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; 37(1) read with
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act; and Sections 3(1)(ii),
3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act,
1999 (“MCOC Act”)

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the said case only on an allegation that he introduced his brother-in-law – Rohit Akhade to the complainant – Ram Shankar Jadhav. He submits that a perusal of the FIR as well as the chargesheet would show that apart from the same, there is no material to connect the appellant with the alleged offences. He submits that the appellant has no antecedents. He further submits that although there is an alleged recovery of Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle at the instance of the appellant, it is pertinent to note, that it is the prosecution case, that the said motor cycle was purchased by his brother-in-lawRohit from the extortion monies, and as such, the same would not prima facie point to the complicity of the appellant in the crime, in the absence of any other evidence.

¶21

2/6

¶22

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶23

4.Learned APP opposes the grant of bail. She however does
not dispute the fact, that apart from introduction of Rohit
Akhade to the complainant– Ram Shankar Jadhav and his
brother, and recovery of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle, there is no
other material to connect the appellant with the alleged offences.
She also does not dispute the fact that the appellant has no
antecedents.

¶24

Perused the papers. According to the complainant – Ram Shankar Jadhav he is engaged in the business of real estate along with his brother, having a firm by the name of “Ashoka Group”. It is alleged by the complainant that the said firm deals with the purchase and sale of land. The complainant has alleged that he knew the appellant since 2014 and that on 31^st May 2022 the appellant called Lakhan – complainant’s brother and told him that he wanted to introduce him to his brother-in-law - Rohit.

¶25

According to the prosecution, thereafter Rohit and Akash extorted monies from the complainant. As far as the appellant is concerned, except for introducing co-accused Rohit to the

¶26

3/6

¶27

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶28

complainant and his brother, no other role is assigned to him in
the commission of the offence of extortion. Nor is the appellant
alleged to be involved in the incident that took place pursuant to
the extortion. No monies were admittedly paid to the appellant.

¶29

7.It appears that there is recovery of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle
at the instance of the appellant. The said motor cycle is alleged to
have been purchased out of the extorted money by the co-accused
Rohit and stands in the name of Rohit.

¶30

8.Considering the evidence on record, the bar of section
21(4) of the MCOC Act will not apply. From the evidence on
record it is difficult to come to the conclusion, that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is guilty of the
offence.

¶31

Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Special Judge under the MCOC Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Spl.(MCOC) Case No. 856 of 2022 dated 16^th March 2023 rejecting the appellants application for bail is quashed and set aside and the appellant is

¶32

4/6

¶33

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶34

enlarged on bail, on the following terms and conditions :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i)The Appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties
in the like amount;

¶37

(ii)The Appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station, on the first Saturday of every month between 10.00
am to 12.00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial, unless the
date coincides with the trial Court date;

¶38

(iii)The Appellant shall inform his latest place of
residence and mobile contact number immediately after
being released and/or change of residence or mobile details,
if any, from time to time to the trial Court as well as to the
concerned Police Station, in writing;

¶39

(iv)The Appellant shall co-operate in the conduct of the
trial and shall attend the trial Court on every date of
hearing, unless exempted;

¶40

5/6

¶41

17-APEAL-616-2023.doc

¶42

(v)An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses (ii) to (v),
shall be filed by the appellant in the Registry of the trial
Court, within two weeks of his release;

¶43

(vi)If there are 2 consecutive defaults either in attending
the Police Station or if the appellant fails to appear before
the trial Court or there is breach of any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to apply for
cancellation of appellants’ bail.

¶44

(vii)Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and
accordingly disposed of.

¶45

10.It is made clear, that the observations made herein are
prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.

¶46

 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶47

GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶48

6/6

Sanket Kailas Dhainje v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanket Kailas Dhainje v. 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

Jigna Jitendra Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashish Ramajor Yadav @ Golu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Ganpat Pardhi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan R. Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balu Atmaram Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra

Krushna Dadaram Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra