Allowed

Sandeep @Chakva Chandrakant Gore v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 May 2024BA/89/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal bail application, granting bail to the applicant on the principle of parity, as another co-accused in the same case had already been released. The court noted the delay in framing charges despite the applicant being in custody for over two years. Standard bail conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail in Crime No.24 of 2022 by executing a bond with sureties.

Sandeep @Chakva Chandrakant Gore Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

50-BA-89-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2024

¶4

Sandeep @ Chakva Chandrakant Gore …. Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶7

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.05.04 12:59:29 +0530

¶8

Mr.Amrish Salunke, for the Applicant. Mr.D.S. Haldankar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr.Jambhalikar Gavandi, PSI, Govandi Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 3^rd MAY 2024

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking bail in

¶13

Crime No.24 of 2022, registered with Govandi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504, 143, 147

¶14

and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶15

It is prosecution case that on 19^th February 2022, the Applicant and co-accused assaulted the First Informant with knife and sword. It is alleged that, the Applicant and co-accused

¶16

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶17

50-BA-89-2024.doc

¶18

had intention to kill the First Informant.

¶19

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶20

Applicant that Accused No.2-Babu Bhandari has been released on bail by this Court. The allegations against the Babu Bhandari and Applicant are same. Hence, the Applicant is entitled for bail on the principle of parity.

¶21

It is contention of the learned APP that, the evidence produced on record shows involvement of the Applicant in crime. The Applicant has 19 criminal antecedents. If the Applicant is released on bail he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to dismiss the Application.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP. Perused FIR and charge-sheet.

¶23

This Court has released Accused No.2 on bail. The allegations against Accused No.2 and the Applicant are same. The Applicant is behind the bar more than 2 years, yet charges have not been framed. The Applicant is entitled for bail on principle of parity and I pass following order.

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶25

50-BA-89-2024.doc

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant-Sandeep @ Chakva Chandrakant Gore be enlarged on bail in Crime No.24 of 2022 registered with Govandi Police Station, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till framing of charge.

¶29

(iv) The 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.

¶30

(v) The Applicant shall not enter in the Chembur area, where the Complainant and witnesses stays, till

¶31

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶32

50-BA-89-2024.doc

¶33

conclusion of the trial.

¶34

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

¶35

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and

¶36

is accordingly disposed off.

¶37

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶38

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶39

order.

¶40

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶41

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Sandeep @Chakva Chandrakant Gore v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @Chakva Chandrakant Gore 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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shobha Tanaji @ Tayapa Hajare and Ors.

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. Vs the General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ronak Sunil Murarka and Ors.

Rahul @ Rawul Bhaguram Sawant and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kamal Mahavir Mandave and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Alka Vijay Bhoir and Ors.