Allowed

Krushnadev Sitaram Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jun 2024ABA/1472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending arrest in a theft case. Finding no prima facie case or necessity for custodial interrogation, the court ordered bail if arrested, subject to bond and sureties, and restrictions on tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted if arrested on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to appearing as required and not influencing witnesses.

Krushnadev Sitaram Kale vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: Chitra Sonawane. 2024.06.19 12-ABA-1472-2024.doc 02:07:17 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1472 of 2024

¶4

Krushnadev Sitaram Kale,

¶5

Age: 41 years, Occ: Business,

¶6

R/at: 0087, Hanuman Chawl,

¶7

Ganesh Nagar, Chinch Pada, Airoli,

¶8

Navi Mumbai,400708 Dist-Thane … Applicant.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra

¶11

(Thane Nagar Police Station) …. Respondent.

¶12

Mr Ajinkya Murumkar i/by Jagdish Shingade for the applicant (through VC).

¶13

Mr Nitin B. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.

¶14

PSI Deepak Duimmalwad, Thane Nagar Police Station is present.

¶15

Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 18 June 2024.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

Heard Mr Ajinkya Murumkar, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Nitin Patil, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent/ State.

¶18

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, apprehending arrest in CR No.244 of 2023, registered at Thane

¶19

Chitra Sonawane. 12-ABA-1472-2024.doc

¶20

Nagar Police Station, Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454, 457 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The prosecution claims that after the theft of gold ornaments and cash from the first informant’s house, these ornaments exchanged hands and were liquidated in the jewellery store, Shree Ganesh Jewellers, owned by the applicant and his business partner, co-accused Ramdas.

¶22

Mr Ajinkya Murumkar, the learned Counsel representing the applicant, asserts that the applicant is innocent and has not purchased any stolen ornaments. He submits that the applicant is a partner of the co-accused Ramdas, and together, they run a jewellery store called Shree Ganesh Jewellers. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. On the contrary, the applicant has come forward to assist the police officials as a witness in another crime. Merely based on suspicion that the applicant has handed over the stolen gold in another crime, in which he was cited as a witness, the police officials seek his arrest. He further submits that the coaccused, Mukesh and Ramdas, are enlarged on bail. Moreover, the charge sheet has already been filed.

¶23

Mr Nitin Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, argues that the applicant is a partner in Shree Ganesh Jewellers, where the stolen ornaments

¶24

Page No. 2 of 4

¶25

18 June 2024

¶26

Chitra Sonawane. 12-ABA-1472-2024.doc

¶27

were received. The stolen items have not yet been recovered. The investigation is ongoing, and the applicant’s custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶28

From perusing the record, it prima facie appears that, at this stage, no role is attributed to the applicant. The sole allegation against the applicant is that he is the partner of the co-accused Ramdas in Shree Ganesh Jewellers. Moreover, even as per the prosecution, the applicant was not present in the store when the alleged stolen ornaments were handed over to his partner, coaccused Ramdas. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is unnecessary. Hence, the following order:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in CR No.244 of 2023, registered at Thane Nagar Police Station, Thane, the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶31

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

¶32

(iii) The applicant shall not, himself or through any other

¶33

Page No. 3 of 4

¶34

18 June 2024

¶35

Chitra Sonawane. 12-ABA-1472-2024.doc

¶36

person, indulge in any activity that would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶37

The present application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Page No. 4 of 4

¶39

18 June 2024

Krushnadev Sitaram Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushnadev Sitaram Kale 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Naval Chauhan vs M/S. Ami Housing Ltd. and Ors.

Suraj Upendra Acharya vs State of Maharashtra

Manoj Asharam Shukla vs State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Rajbahadur Tiwari vs the State of Maharashtra

Anurag Brijesh Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Jayesh Kantilal Shah vs State of Maharashtra