Dismissed¶55

Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025ABA/3241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Rajesh S. Patil J., 21-02-2025: two anticipatory bail applications rejected (ABA 3383/2024 - Sandip Pralhad Wavage; ABA 3241/2024 - Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap) under Section 482 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 0454 dt. 24.05.2024, Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural; Sections 307, 353, 341, 427, 504, 506, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC and Section 135 Maharashtra Police Act 1951; 'Sand Mafias' attack on Tahsildar; four antecedents incl. Sections 307, 324, 341; unrecovered Brezza car used in escape; risk of witness intimidation; custodial interrogation held necessary.

What did the court decide?

The custody of the present applicants is necessary: releasing them would put pressure on the informant and the witnesses and, looking into their criminal record, they are likely to threaten the witnesses. ¶53

Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicant Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap (accused no. 9), who has atleast four criminal antecedents including offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 341 in earlier FIRs. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

Recorded as a fact that the applicant Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap (accused no. 9) has atleast four more crimes registered against him, including the crime punishable under sections 324 and 307.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

¶53

Key takeaways

The names of both the applicants were specifically mentioned by the local Sarpanch of the village.ratio¶46
As regards applicant Sandip Pralhad Wavage (accused no. 10), his alleged role was helping accused no. 1 flee away after committing the crime in a Brezza car, and the said Brezza car is yet to be recovered.ratio¶52
Finding no merit in the two anticipatory bail applications, both were rejected.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), order dated 21 February 2025: Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 3383 and 3241 of 2024 by Sandip Pralhad Wavage (accused no. 10) and Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap (accused no. 9), under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 0454 dated 24 May 2024 of Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, for offences under Sections 307, 353, 341, 427, 504, 506, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, arising from an alleged attack by thirteen persons styled 'Sand Mafias' on a Tahsildar and his driver, were rejected. Of the 13 accused, nos. 1-8, 12 and 13 were already in custody and no. 11 absconded. The court recorded that Jagtap had atleast four antecedents including offences under Sections 307, 324 and 341; that both applicants were specifically named by the local Sarpanch; and that Wavage was alleged to have helped co-accused no. 1 (Shiva Ekad) flee in a Brezza car yet to be recovered and was connected with the snatched mobile phone of the Sarpanch (later handed over to and recovered by the IO). Holding that release would put pressure on the informant and witnesses and that, given their criminal record, the applicants were likely to threaten witnesses, the court found their custody necessary and dismissed both applications.

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/6

¶3

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

Digitally KANCHAN signed byKANCHANVINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date:2025.02.24 13:29:19 +0530

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3383 OF 2024

¶8

Sandip Pralhad Wavage ….. Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶11

ALONGWITH

¶12

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3241 OF 2024 Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap ….. Applicant

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶15

Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the Applicants in both ABA.

¶16

Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶18

DATE : 21^st FEBRUARY, 2025

¶19

P.C. :-

¶20

This application is filed for pre-arrest bail under Section

¶21

482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 0454 dated 24^th May, 2024 registered

¶22

with Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural for the offence

¶23

KVM

¶24

2/6

¶25

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶26

punishable under Sections 307, 353, 341, 427, 504, 506, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶27

The present applicants are part of the group of 13 accused who are called as ‘Sand Mafias’. Out of 13 accused, accused nos. 1 to 8, 12 and 13 are arrested and are in the custody of the police. The accused no.11 is shown as absconding. The present applicants are accused nos. 9 and 10. Their role has been mentioned in the charge-sheet.

¶28

It is the case of the applicants that the custody of the

¶29

present applicants is not necessary as they are always willing to co-operate with the police. Their names does not find in the statement on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. Their names have been added in the charge-sheet only because the statement recorded by the police and the Sarpanch. Therefore, the interim protection be granted to them till filing of the charge-sheet.

¶30

KVM

¶31

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶32

It is the case of the present applicants that their names does

¶33

not display in the initial FIR filed. It is only the accused nos. 1 to 5 whose names have been noted as the persons who attacked the Tahsildar and his driver. The applicants are ready to co-operate with the police and record their statements.

¶34

The learned A.P.P. submits that the entire group of 13 people have together attacked a public servant i.e. ‘Tahsildar’ when he was travelling along with his driver. Few of the accused came in front of his car with their own car and as the car of the Tahsildar stopped, they got down and started hitting the car with iron rod and stick, and the chilly power was used by the accused to throw on the face of the Tahsildar and his driver. With great difficulty, the driver of the Tahsildar taking the reverse turn of the vehicle, saved the life of the Tahsildar and himself. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

¶35

KVM

¶36

4/6

¶37

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶38

The learned A.P.P. submits that there are atleast four

¶39

antecedents against the applicants (Mr. Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap) the crimes against him in the earlier FIRs are the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 341. The names of both the applicants have been specifically mentioned by the local Sarpanch of the village. The accused persons have put the life of public servant Tahsildar in danger by attacking him with iron rod and also throwing chilly power on the face of the informant and his driver.

¶40

As regards the applicant Mr. Sandip Pralhad Wavage is concerned, it has been specifically stated that the said accused has direct connection with the crime. He helped the co-accused no.1, Mr.Shiva Ekad after commission of the crime, to flee away in Brezza Car. The said car has not been recovered. The applicant (Mr. Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap) along with the coaccused forcefully snatched the mobile phone of the Sarpanch and the same was to be recovered. However, when the present applicant Mr. Sandip Pralhad Wavage visited the office of the IO,

¶41

KVM

¶42

5/6

¶43

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶44

the mobile phone was handed over to the IO. It is submitted that the Brezza Car has to be recovered. All the other 13 accused are in police custody. Therefore, the present applicants would also be required to be interrogated by taking both of them in the custody.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also the considered the FIR and the charge-sheet and the statements attached to the charge-sheet. It is a fact that the applicant, accused no. 9, has atleast four more crime registered against him, including the crime punishable under sections 324 and 307.

¶46

There are atleast four antecedents against the applicants (Mr. Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap) the crimes against him in the earlier FIRs are the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 341. The names of both the applicants have been specifically mentioned by the local Sarpanch of the village.

¶47

As far as the applicant Mr. Sandip Pralhad Wavage who is

¶48

KVM

¶49

6/6

¶50

905 - ABA 3383 & 3241 OF 2024.doc

¶51

arrayed as accused no.10 is concerned, his role has been alleged that he helped the accused no.1 to flee away after committing the

¶52

crime in Brezza car. The said Brezza car is yet to be recovered.

¶53

The accused Mr. Sandip Pralhad Wavage is also alleged to be part of the accused person who snatched the mobile phone of the Sarpanch. Though the said mobile phone has now been recovered by the IO, it will be necessary to find out how many more such crimes have committed by the present accused who are termed as Sand Mafias. Releasing the present applicants would also be putting pressure on the informant and the witnesses. Looking into the criminal record of the applicants, they are likely to threaten the witnesses in the present matters. Therefore, the custody of the present applicants is necessary.

¶54

Hence, I find no merit in these two anticipatory bail

¶55

applications. Both the anticipatory bail applications are rejected.

¶56

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Nanasaheb Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pavan Chandrakant Pawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Dildar Hussain Abdul Hasan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Didar Dildar Hussain Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Ramanand @ Ram Pandharinath Dombe vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Muktaji Bansode vs State of Maharashtra

Tarachand Meghraj Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra