Allowed

Samir Mohan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2024BA/475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application by Sameer Mohan Jadhav and Anr. challenging the status quo in a murder case where they were incarcerated for over 8 years. The single judge, recognizing the principles of parity and the likelihood of a delayed 20-witness trial, granted bail with standard conditions including bail bonds and territorial restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing P.R. Bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

Samir Mohan Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2024

¶4

Sameer Mohan Jadhav & Anr....Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, Advocate/s for the Applicants.
Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. S.B. Yeole, P.S.I., Pusegaon Police Station, District-Satara, present

¶6

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

¶7

DATED : 7th February 2024

¶8

P. C.

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants

¶10

and Ms. Kaushik, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

¶11

2.This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the

¶12

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are as follows:-

¶13

`1. C. R. No.`	`61 of 2015`
`2. Date of registration of F.I.R.`	`15`^th`May 2015`
`3. Name of Police Station`	`Pusegaon, Tal. Khatav, District-` `Satara`
`4. Section/s invoked`	`302, 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149,` `504, 506 ofIndian Penal Code,` `1860.` `Section 37(1), Section 35 ofArms` `Act, 1959.`
`5. Date of incident`	`15`^th`August 2015`
`6. Date of arrest`	`18`^th`August 2015`
`7. Date of filing Charge-sheet`	`In 2015`

¶14

1/6

¶15

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶16

3.Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants
submitted that the Applicants are incarcerated for more than 8 years
and 6 months. There are total 48 witnesses proposed to be examined by
the prosecution, as per the Charge-sheet. He submitted that there is no
role assigned to the Applicant No.1-Sameer Mohan Jadhav (Accused
No.9). He submitted that as far as Applicant No.2-Shripati Mahipati
Jadhav (Accused No.10), role attributed to him is that he was assaulted
with an axe. He submitted that Accused No.12-Ashok Mahipati Jadhav
having same role as the Applicant No.2, has been granted bail by a
learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: M.S. Karnik, J.) by Order
dated 22nd December 2023 passed in Bail Application No.4136 of 2023.
He therefore submitted that the Applicants are entitled for bail.

¶17

4.On the other hand, Ms. Kaushik, learned APP strongly opposed
the Bail Application. She pointed out the statements of various
witnesses and submitted that there are many eye-witnesses to the
incident. She submitted that the present Applicants have specific role in
the assault and therefore bail be not granted. She submitted that
although as per the Charge-sheet 48 witnesses are mentioned, however,
the prosecution proposes to examine only 20 witnesses.

¶18

5.Perusal of Order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by a learned
Single Judge in the case of Accused No.12-Ashok Mahipati Jadhav
shows that as the said Applicant was incarcerated since 16th August

¶19

2/6

¶20

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶21

2015 and as there is likely to be a delay in concluding the trial, the
learned Single Judge has granted bail. The relevant part of said Order is
paragraphs 3 to 5. The said paragraphs read as under:

¶22

"3.The date of the incident is 15.08.2015. There
are in all 13 accused. The applicant is the accused
No.12. The applicant was arrested on 16.08.2015. The
applicant was armed with an axe. According to learned
Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is not the main
assailant.

¶23

4.Learned APP opposed the application for bail.
Learned APP submitted that even the eye witnesses
have specifically stated that they were assaulted by the
applicant as well. These are matters which obviously
will be gone into by the trial Court. Learned APP
submitted that the trial has commenced and therefore
this application should not be entertained.

¶24

5.I am informed that 2 witnesses have been
examined. The prosecution proposes to examine 48
more witnesses. Learned APP submitted that it is not
as if all the witnesses will be examined. The trial is not
likely to conclude any time soon. The applicant is in
custody for more than eight years and four months.
There are no criminal antecedents reported against the
applicant. The applicant does not appear to be a flight
risk. Considering the long incarceration of the
applicant, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on
bail though learned APP opposed the application for
bail."

¶25

6.Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is right
in seeking parity on the basis of the above mentioned Order granting
bail.

¶26

3/6

¶27

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶28

7.The factual position on record clearly shows that the Applicants
were arrested on 18th August 2015 and that oral depositions of only
two witnesses is completed and third witness is currently under cross-
examination. As there are total 20 witnesses proposed to be examined
by the prosecution, the trial is likely to take a considerably long time.

¶29

8.Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants states
that as several witnesses are residing in the same locality as that of the
Applicants, the Applicants will therefore not reside within Taluka-
Khatav, District-Satara and that the Applicant No.1- Sameer Mohan
Jadhav will reside at his sister's house at Asudgaon, Khanda Colony,
New Panvel, Panvel, District Raigad and Applicant No.2- Shripati
Mahipati Jadhav will reside at his father-in-law's house at Palashi,
Taluka-Man, District-Satara.

¶30

9. The Applicants do not appears to be at risk of flight.

¶31

10. The Applicants do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶32

11.Accordingly, the Applicants can be enlarged on bail by imposing
conditions. In view thereof, the following order:-

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(a)The Applicants-Sameer Mohan Jadhav and
Shripati Mahipati Jadhav be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.61 of 2015 registered with
the Pusegaon Police Station, Taluka- Khatav, District-

¶35

4/6

¶36

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶37

Satara on their furnishing P. R. Bonds of Rs.25,000/-
each with one or two solventsureties in the like
amount.

¶38

(b)The Applicants shall not enter the Khatav,
Taluka District-Satara after being released on bail,
except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if
called and for attending the trial.

¶39

(c)On being released on bail, the Applicants shall
furnish their cell phone numbers and residential
addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall keep
the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶40

(d)The Applicant No.1-Sameer Mohan Jadhav
shall report to the KhandeshwarPolice Station, Taluka
Panvel, District Raigad and Applicant No.2- Shripati
Mahipati Jadhav shall report to the MhaswadPolice
Station, Tal. Man, District Satara once every week, on
every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till
the conclusion of the trial. The Police Inspectors of
Khandeshwar (Panvel, District-Raigad) Police Station
and Mhaswad (Taluka-Man, District-Satara) Police
Station to communicate respective details thereof to
the Investigating Officer.

¶41

5/6

¶42

904 BA 475.24.doc
Dusane

¶43

(e)The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the
Court or to any Police personnel.

¶44

(f)The Applicants shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witnesses in any manner.

¶45

(g)The Applicants shall attend the trial regularly.
The Applicants shall co-operate with the Trial Court
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments thereat.
(h)The Applicants shall surrender their passports,
if any, to the Investigating Officer.

¶46

12.The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

13.It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima facie
and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and
uninfluenced by the observations made in this Order.

¶48

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶49

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2024.02.07 19:12:19 +0530

¶50

6/6

Samir Mohan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Mohan Jadhav 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

Janardhan Arvind Parulekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Balu Dalavi Vs State of Maharashtra

Dayanand Rajendra Londhe Vs State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Mahesh Sitaram Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradip Dattatray Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra