Dismissed¶8

Bharat Pradip Solanki v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2025BA/4808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Manish Pitale, J.; Bail Application No. 4808 of 2024; Bharat Pradip Solanki v. State of Maharashtra; bail dismissed; third bail application; long incarceration / nearly 7 years custody; extortion; Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA); recovery of country made pistol with live cartridges; gang leader absconding; co-accused bail in Crl. BA No. 1884 of 2019; 18 of 79 witnesses examined; trial to conclude by September 2025.

What did the court decide?

Given the serious allegations against the applicant, the status of the trial brought to the Court's notice, and the reasonable possibility of the trial being completed within the extended period of time granted by the Court, it would not be appropriate to show any indulgence to the bail application. ¶7

Bharat Pradip Solanki vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

903.BA.4808.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4808 OF 2024

¶4

Bharat Pradip Solanki

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

¶10

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶11

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2025.02.28 18:24:27 +0530

¶12

 Mr. M. B. Shirsat, for Applicant.

¶13

 Mr. Y.Y. Dabke, APP for Respondent.

¶14

 API – Dhotre, DCB CID, AE Cell, Mumbai.

¶15

¶16

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 28^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶17

P. C. :

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for

¶19

the respondent – State.

¶20

On 21^st February, 2025, this Court had enquired from the learned

¶21

APP as to what was the latest status of the trial pending against the applicant and co-accused persons.

¶22

The learned APP has received written instructions to state that

¶23

the prosecution has already examined 18 witnesses and although the list of witnesses shows 79 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution, actually the prosecution would be examining only 15 more witnesses. It is further submitted that the trial is being conducted on weekly basis. The last date of listing was 21^st February, 2025, and the next date is 03^rd March, 2025. It is

Page1 of 3

Shrikant Malani

903.BA.4808.2024.doc

further brought to the notice of this Court that as per the extension of time granted for completion of trial, the concerned Court is directed to complete the trial by September, 2025.

¶28

As noted in the order dated 21^st February, 2025, this is the third bail application of the applicant. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the applicant is pressing for relief is the aspect of long incarceration, as the applicant has undergone almost 7 years of imprisonment during pendency of the trial. It is submitted that a co-accused person was granted bail as far back as on 01^st March, 2021, when Criminal Bail Application No.1884 of 2019, was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶29

There are total six accused persons in the present case. Serious offences of extortion and also offences under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, are registered against the accused persons in the present case. Only one accused person has been granted bail. The gang leader is still absconding and even charge-sheet could not be filed against him.

¶30

The allegations against the applicant are serious and it is recorded by the Sessions Court while rejecting the bail application of the applicant that during the course of investigation there were statements of witnesses to the

Page2 of 3

Shrikant Malani

903.BA.4808.2024.doc

effect that the applicant, at the behest of the gang leader, was indulging in extortion. There is also recovery of a country made pistol with live cartridges from the applicant.

¶35

In such a situation, it would not be appropriate to show any indulgence to the application, particularly when the status of the trial has been brought to the notice of this Court and there is reasonable possibility of the trial itself being completed within the extended period of time granted by this Court.

¶36

In view of the above, the application is dismissed.

¶37

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶38

Page3 of 3

¶39

Shrikant Malani

Bharat Pradip Solanki v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Pradip Solanki v. the 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

Siddika Solanki through Constituted Attorney Rakesh Vinayak Sawant vs Varkey Overseas Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., and 2 Ors.

Lalit Kumar Brijnarain Seth vs Lata Kantilal Mehta (Deceased)

Shivam Bharat Magar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kunal Suresh Bharam vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivam Bharat Magar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivam Bharat Magar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.