Rashtrapati @ Maruti Yuvraj Patil and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rashtrapati @ Maruti Yuvraj Patil and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicants enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 103 of 2021 (Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, District Sangli) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/each with one or two sureties in the like amount, conditioned on: no tampering with evidence, no attempt to influence or contact witnesses or persons concerned with the case, and regular attendance at Trial Court dates; application disposed of in those terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, in custody for more than four years on charges under Sections 307, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (together with Sections 4, 25 of an Act whose name is truncated in the source text) in C.R. No. 103 of 2021, Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, District Sangli, are entitled to regular bail given that the trial remains unconcluded. +1 more

Court's answer

After more than four years in custody with the trial still unconcluded (only 9 of 22 witnesses examined) and no criminal antecedents, the applicants' continued detention was found unjustified; the Court departed from the Sessions Court's earlier refusal founded solely on the trial being in progress.

Ratio / Principle

On those facts, further detention of the applicants was held not required, and the bail application was allowed.

Key takeaways

Bail was granted subject to conditions answering the prosecution's witness-intimidation concern: the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence nor attempt to influence or contact witnesses or any person concerned with the case.ratio¶¶36
Caveat recorded: the observations in the bail order were made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by them.obiter¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Criminal Bail Application No. 2621 of 2025 — Shivkumar Dige, J., 20 August 2025: Regular bail granted to Rashtrapati @ Maruti Yuvraj Patil and anr., applicants in C.R. No. 103 of 2021 (Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, District Sangli), prosecuted for offences under Sections 307, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 25 of an Act whose name is truncated in the source text; background allegation of a 6 March 2021 kukri assault on the first informant's cousin. The Sessions Court had earlier refused bail on the ground that the trial was in progress. Allowing bail, the Court reasoned that the applicants had been behind bars for more than four years without trial completion (only 9 of 22 witnesses examined) and had no criminal antecedents, so further detention was not required. Enlargement ordered on a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/each with one or two sureties in the like amount, conditional on non-tampering with evidence, no influencing or contacting of witnesses or connected persons, and regular attendance at trial dates. The Court cautioned that its observations were made solely for the purpose of granting bail and would not bind the Trial Court. No precedent was cited; single-judge order, no dissent.

44.2621.25 ba.docx

Iresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2621 OF 2025

Rashtrapati @ Maruti Yuvraj .....Applicants Patil and anr

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

.....Respondent

Ms. Rati Sinhasane i/b Mr. Abhishek Ingale for the applicants Dr. Ashvini Takalkar APP for the State

Mr. Narayan T. Garde, HC 2599, Kavthe Mahakal Police Station

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 20^th AUGUST 2025

P.C.:

By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 103 2021 registered with Kavathe Mahankal Police

IRESH MASHAL

Station, District Sangli for offences punishable under Sections

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.08.22 10:48:50 +0530

307, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 25 of the

It is the prosecution’s case that on 6^th March 2021 around

9.00 a.m., the applicants and co-accused assaulted first

1/4

44.2621.25 ba.docx

informant’s cousin with kukri i.e. sharp weapon with an intention to kill him.

It is the contention of learned counsel for applicants that applicants are behind bar for more than four years. Out of 22 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.

It is the contention of learned APP that applicants assaulted cousin of the first informant with kukri with an intention to kill him. They assaulted on head of the victim. The injury certificate produced on record shows that the injured had sustained two grievous injuries and simple injuries. It shows that applicant had intention to kill the injured witness. Learned APP further submits that trial is in progress. Out of 22 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined and within a short time, trial will be concluded. If applicants are released on bail, they may threaten prosecution witnesses. The trial is delayed due to non cooperation of the advocate for the applicants. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and

2/4

44.2621.25 ba.docx

documents produced on record. Applicants are behind the bar for more than 4 years. Out of 22 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined. The learned Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of the applicants on the ground that trial is in progress. In my view, applicants are behind the bar for more than 4 years. They have no criminal antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. Though four years have been passed, trial is not concluded.

Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order :

O R D E R

I. Application is allowed.

II. Applicants be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 103 2021 registered with Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, District Sangli on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

III. Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

IV. Applicants shall attend the Trial Court dates,

3/4

44.2621.25 ba.docx

regularly.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is

accordingly disposed off.

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.

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

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]

4/4