Allowed

Prashant Ramesh Koli v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2023BA/2208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with attempted murder and organized crime offenses. Granting bail on the principle of parity with a co-accused released for an identical role, the court imposed conditions restricting the applicant's movement and contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail by executing a bond and observing conditions of surrender to police monthly and avoiding contact with witnesses.

Prashant Ramesh Koli Vs State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

30-BA-2208-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2208 OF 2022

¶5

Prashant Ramesh Koli ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2023.10.07 17:11:01 +0530

¶7

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Priyanka Gupta i/b Mr. Rupesh Zade for the Applicant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ramji T. Kotali for the Intervenor in IA/4599/2022 -----

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 26^th SEPTEMBER 2023.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By this application, applicant is seeking bail in C. R. No. 491 of 2020 registered with Nigdi Police Station, Dist – Pune, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short “MCOC Act”).

1/5

30-BA-2208-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

It is prosecution’s case that on 21st December, 2020

¶16

applicant and other two co-accused came in Car and fired at first informant and his brother from the pistol. They tried to kill, the first informant and his brother and Rafiq. It is alleged that the present applicant was a person who had fired from pistol at first informant and his brother and Rafiq.

¶17

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is entitled for bail on parity. As the co-accused Suraj Pawar, against whom same allegations have been levelled, is released on bail by the trial Court. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that

¶19

applicant is not entitled for parity as, at the instance of Suraj Pawar only pistol is recovered, whereas at the instance of applicant pistol along with two cartridges have been recovered. After releasing on bail co-accused Suraj Pawar has committed another offence. If applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that there is conversation recorded between first informant and applicant after the incident, it

2/5

30-BA-2208-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

shows that applicant was threatening the first informant. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶24

Learned APP submitted that applicant has antecedent and

¶25

he is member of syndicate crime. If applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶26

I have heard all learned counsel. The role attributed to the co-accused Suraj Pawar and applicant is same. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused Suraj Pawar had fired from their pistol towards first informant and his brother and Rafiq. The co-accused Suraj Pawar is released on bail by trial Court and the said order has not been challenged. Applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity.

¶27

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Applicant be enlarged on bail in C. R. No. 491 of

¶30

2020 registered with Nigdi Police Station, Dist –

3/5

30-BA-2208-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

Pune , on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.

¶35

25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like

¶36

amount.

¶37

(ii) Applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month i.e. on first Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till framing of charge.

¶38

(iii) Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer.

¶39

(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

(v) Applicant shall not enter in the area of PimpriChinchwad and shall not contact first informant and witnesses, till the conclusion of the trial.

¶41

(vi) The Trial Court shall decide the said case on its

¶42

own merits, in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in this

4/5

30-BA-2208-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

order.

In view of disposal of the Criminal Bail Application nothing

¶48

survive in Interim Application No.4599 of 2022, it is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶50

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶51

order.

¶52

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶53

5/5

Prashant Ramesh Koli v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Ramesh Koli 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

Mohd. Fakiyan Ayyub Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Aafroz Faiyaz Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Mohd Idris Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Yadya Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Swapnil Prakash Khonde Vs State of Maharashtra

Dashrath Bhagwan Sable Vs State of Maharashtra