Allowed

Vivek Ramesh Shewale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Sept 2023BA/2467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction allowed a bail application filed by Vivek Ramesh Shewale in C.R. No. 40 of 2021 arising from dacoity charges. The court recognized that despite the gravity of the offense under the MCOC Act, the completion of investigation and long detention rendered further custody unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 40 of 2021 on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties and complying with reporting conditions.

Vivek Ramesh Shewale Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

30-BA-2467-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2467 OF 2022

¶5

Vivek Ramesh Shewale

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶9

Ms. Shubhangi Parulekar a/w. Mr. Abhijeet Ghule-Patil, Advocate for
Applicant.

¶10

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2023

¶13

P. C:-

¶14

1.By this Application, Applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 40 of
2021 registered with Sahkarnagar Police Station, Pune for the
offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short “IPC”) and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (for short “MCOC
Act”).

¶15

2.It is the prosecution’s case that the first informant was
working as a supervisor in Country Liquor Bar of one Vivek Gupta
situated at Aranyeshwar, Pune and on 03.03.2021 at about 10.30

¶16

S.S.Kilaje page 1 of 4

¶17

30-BA-2467-22.doc

¶18

p.m. 6 unknown persons came to his shop with deadly weapons and
tried to rob money from cash counter. At that time, first informant
resisted the said act. It is alleged that first informant was assaulted
by those persons and by threatening first informant they took out
cash from the cash counter and fled away. In investigation, in
connection of present crime police arrested Applicant and co-
accused. It is alleged that, while committing dacoity Applicant was
standing outside the said Country Liquor Bar.

¶19

3.It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that
name of the Applicant was not mentioned in the FIR. Applicant’s
name was added after two months of the incident. There is no
recovery at the instance of Applicant, only one offence was
registered against the Applicant and while sending the proposal
under MCOC Act no name of Applicant was mentioned in the said
proposal. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been
filed. Applicant is behind the bar more than two years. Hence,
requested to allow the Application.

¶20

4.Learned APP submitted that the Applicant is a member of
Syndicate crime. He has involved in the dacoity committed on
Country Liquor Bar of first informant. Applicant was standing
outside the said bar. It shows his involvement in the said crime. In

¶21

S.S.Kilaje page 2 of 4

¶22

30-BA-2467-22.doc

¶23

the confessional statement, Applicant has admitted that he was
present at the time of incident. Applicant had 4 antecedents. If
Applicant is released on bail, he may threaten prosecution witnesses.
Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶24

5.I have heard both the learned Counsel. Perused the FIR and
charge-sheet. It is alleged that, Applicant was standing outside the
Country Liquor Bar when co-accused had committed dacoity and
robbed cash from the cash counter of the first informant’s Country
Liquor Bar. There is no recovery at the instance of Applicant.
Applicant’s name was not included in the proposal. Applicant is
behind the bar more than two years. Investigation is completed and
charge-sheet has been filed. Considering the above facts, his further
detention is not required.

¶25

6. In view of the above, I pass following Order:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) Applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 40 of 2021 registered with Sahkarnagar Police Station, Pune on executing P. R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(ii) Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a month i.e. on first Monday of the month

¶29

S.S.Kilaje page 3 of 4

¶30

30-BA-2467-22.doc

¶31

between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till framing of
charge.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶34

(v) The Trial Court shall decide the said case on its own merits, in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2023.09.2714:43:41 +0530

¶39

S.S.Kilaje page 4 of 4

Vivek Ramesh Shewale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Ramesh Shewale 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

Vakil Atik Ahmed Attarwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vakil Atik Ahmed Attarwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anwar Iqbal Hussain Sayed Vs the State of Maharashtra

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