Sambhaji Vishwas Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2025.03.19 18:31:27 +0530

¶2

3-BA-534-25.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2025

¶4

Sambhaji V. Jagtap V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

...Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Mr. Sainath Garade and Adv. Dhavalsinha Patil i/b Mr. Aadesh Konde Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, APP for the Respondent/State. ASI S.D. Kale, Jejuri Police Station present.

¶9

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 12.03.2025.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an application for regular bail.

¶12

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.442 of 2024 registered at Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 309(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 39,45 & 46 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act.

¶13

The allegations against the present applicant and other coaccused are of illegally doing the business of money lending. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused were harassing the father of the complainant for return of money, which he had allegedly borrowed from them. It is alleged that due to said harassment the father of the complainant attempted to commit suicide.

1/2

Dinesh S. Sherla

3-BA-534-25.doc

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with ulterior motive false allegations are made against the present applicant. It is submitted that the investigation is over and there is nothing to show that the applicant was illegally doing the business of money lending. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than 2 months. It is accordingly, submitted that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶20

The applicant is in jail for more than two months. There are no other antecedents against the applicant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

A] The Application is allowed.

¶23

B] The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 442 of 2024 registered at Jejuri Police Station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 309(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 39, 45 & 46 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

2/2

¶25

Dinesh S. Sherla

Sambhaji Vishwas Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Vishwas Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Happy Surendrasingh Sandhu vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafi Sikandar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Sopan Mundhe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohan Dnyandeo Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra

Shreyas Sanjay Mane vs State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Laliya @ Lalu Devilal Phuleri vs the State of Maharashtra