Trushal @ Dadu S/O Dipak Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Rajapeth, Dist. Amravati

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶16

(BA) NO.690/2025

¶17

Shri T.U.Tathod, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri
N.R.Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

(BA) NO.692/2025

¶19

Shri T.U.Tathod, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri
N.R.Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶21

.....2/-

¶22

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶23

¶24

(BA) NO.699/2025 Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri N.R.Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶25

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

¶26

CLOSED ON : 25/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08/09/2025

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

By these applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicants seek regular bail in connection with Crime No.429/2024 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶29

Applicants Samir Nagesh Dongare and Trushal @ Dadu Dipak Jambhulkar are arrested on 22.7.2024, whereas, applicant Yash Shashikant Kate is arrested on 19.7.2024 and since then they are in jail.

¶30

.....3/-

¶31

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶32

¶33

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Nayan Amol Mandale, who is younger brother of Rohit Mandale (the deceased). As per his report, 19.7.2024 is his birthday and for celebrating the same, he along with his friends gathered near Kedia Nagar Garden along with the deceased on 18.7.2024. The deceased was waiting along with his 2-3 friends at the gate of the said garden with Cake. At the relevant time, one white colour car came in speed and dashed against the deceased due to which he fell down and was in a pool of blood. As soon as the deceased fell down, 4-5 persons came out of the car including the applicants and started assaulting the deceased with kicks and fist blows. The deceased was assaulted with iron rafter and a big stone on his head. At the relevant time, other accused persons came on the spot holding weapons like swords and knives in their hands. As per the allegations, due to the previous enmity, the applicants and the other co-accused caused death of the deceased.

¶34

.....4/-

¶35

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶36

¶37

On the basis of the said report, the police
registered the crime against the applicants.

¶38

Heard learned counsel Shri T.U.Tathod and learned counsel Shri S.V.Sirpurkar appearing for respective applicants and learned Public Prosecutor Shri D.V.Chauhan for the State.

¶39

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that involvement of the applicants in the assault is doubtful. The vital allegations of assault is levelled against co-accused namely Karan Dendwal who is already released on bail. Applicant Trushal though named in the FIR, no specific role is attributed to him. The CCTV panchanama regarding the footage collected from the house of co-accused Karan Dendwal shows that on the day of the incident, at about 11:30 pm, he was in the house. So, the entire genesis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful. The statements of the eyewitnesses are contrary to the CCTV Footage. The possibility of false

¶40

.....5/-

¶41

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶42

¶43

implication cannot be ruled out by taking disadvantage of
the incident as there was previous dispute between the
applicants and the deceased. The deceased was accused
in murder case on an allegation that he caused death of
brother of co-accused Karan Dendwal. Learned counsel
appearing for applicants invited my attention to various
statements of witnesses and order passed by the Sessions
Court releasing co-accused Karan Dendwal on bail. Thus,
they submitted that on the ground of parity, the
applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶44

In support of their contentions, learned counsel appearing for respective applicants placed reliance on following decisions:

¶45

1. Ajay Dyaneshwar Bhoir vs. State of
Maharashtra and anr, reported in 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 16432;

¶46

2. Chikkrange Gowda and ors vs. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1956 SC 731;

¶47

3. Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Cri.) No.10587/2023) decided by the

¶48

.....6/-

¶49

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶50

¶51

Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.12.2024 (Ayub Khan
vs. The State of Rajasthan); and

¶52

4. Masalti and ors vs. State of UP, reported in
AIR 1965 SC 302.

¶53

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted that the applicants were members of “unlawful assembly” and in furtherance of their common object, they committed the offence. Being members of the “unlawful assembly,” they are liable for the act committed by the co-accused. The ground of parity is not available to the applicants. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased is sufficient to show that the applicants, who are members of the “unlawful assembly,” in furtherance of their common object, caused the death of the deceased. The involvement of the applicants reveals during the investigating. One of applicants Samir s/o Nagesh Dongare was externed by externment order dated 15.3.2023. He was externed for

¶54

2 years by the said order. He entered into the vicinity by

¶55

.....7/-

¶56

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶57

¶58

violating the condition, “not to enter into Amravati City or
Amravati Rural Area within the jurisdiction of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Parimandal No.2,” imposed on
him. He entered by contravening the said directions and
committed the offence. For all above these reasons, the
applications of the applicants deserve to be rejected.

¶59

On hearing both the sides and perusing investigation papers, it reveals that the deceased was accused in a murder case of brother of co-accused Karan Dendwal and on that count there was previous enmity between them. As per the allegations, on 18.7.2024, at about 11:30 pm, when the deceased along with other prosecution witnesses was standing at the gate of Kedia Nagar Garden, one car gave dash to him and from the said car the applicants along with ca-accused Karan Dendwal got down and started assaulting the deceased. The allegation of giving blows by iron rafter is against coaccused Karan Dendwal. It is further alleged that other

¶60

.....8/-

¶61

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶62

¶63

co-accused Bhushan Watkar has thrown a big stone on the
head of the deceased. At the relevant time, Sonu, Yash
Kate, Anshu Sonone, and Nitin Ingole and other co-
accused persons came at the spot holding swords and
knives in their hands.

¶64

Thus, as per recital of the FIR, presence of all applicants is narrated by the informant at the spot of the incident.

¶65

The statements of eyewitnesses also reiterated

¶66

the same.

¶67

During investigation, the investigating officer collected the CCTV Footage from the house of co-accused Karan Dendwal which shows that on 18.7.2024 said Karan has left his house at 8:14 pm and returned home at 21:26 hours and, thereafter, he was seen leaving the house at 00:03 hours. On the basis of the said CCTV Footage, said Karan was released on bail by the learned

¶68

.....9/-

¶69

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶70

¶71

Sessions Judge. On that ground, the parity is claimed by
the applicants.

¶72

Insofar as authenticity of the CCTV Footage is concerned, the same is a matter of evidence.

¶73

At this stage only question is that whether the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶74

The Hon’ ble Apex Court, in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, reported in (2021)6 SCC 230, observed that, “parity while granting bail must focus upon role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance”.

¶75

.....10/-

¶76

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶77

¶78

Learned counsel for the applicants placed

¶79

reliance on the decision in the case of Masalti and ors vs.
State of UPsupra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down test to ascertain whether persons are members
of “unlawful assembly” and held mere presence in an
assembly does not make a person, who is present, a
number of an unlawful assembly unless it is shown that
he had done something or omitted to do something which
would make him a member of an unlawful assembly, or
unless the case falls under Section 142 of the IPC. the
said observation cannot be read as laying down a general
proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved
against a person who is alleged to be a member of an
unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member
of such an unlawful assembly. What has to be proved
against a person who is alleged to be a member of an
unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons
constituting the assembly, and he entertained along with

¶80

the other members of the assembly the common object as

¶81

.....11/-

¶82

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶83

¶84

defined by Section 141. In other words, an assembly of
five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or
more of the common objects specified by the five clauses
of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial
question to determine in such a case is whether the
assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether
the said persons entertained one or more of the common
objects as specified by Section 141. While determining
this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the
assembly consisted of some persons who were merely
passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter
of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the
common object of the assembly. In fact, Section 149
makes it clear that if an offence is committed by any
member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or such as the members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence is a member of the same

¶85

.....12/-

¶86

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶87

¶88

assembly, is guilty of that offence; and that emphatically
brings out the principle that the punishment prescribed by
Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and does not always
proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually
committed by every member of the unlawful assembly.

¶89

The similar observations are made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chikkrange Gowda and ors vs. State of Mysore supra that, “the first essential element of Section 149 is the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly; the second essential part is that the offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.

¶90

Whether the applicants in the present applications are members of “unlawful assembly” is a matter of evidence.

¶91

.....13/-

¶92

¶93

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶94

Admittedly, co-accused Karan Dendwal to

¶95

whom the overt act is attributed is already released on
bail. The State has not challenged the said order.

¶96

Insofar as applicants Trushal @ Dadu Dipak Jambhulkar and Yash Shashikant Kate are concerned, except their presence, no other role is attributed to them.

¶97

Whether they were sharing common object or
not and whether they are having knowledge that the co-
accused were intending to cause death of the deceased is
also a matter of evidence.

¶98

At this stage, considering no overt act is
attributed to them, Criminal Application (BA)
No.692/2025 and Criminal Application (BA)
No.699/2025 deserve to be allowed.

¶99

Applicant Samir s/o Nagesh Dongare, was externed by the externment dated 15.3.2023 for a period of 2 years and he was restricted from entering into the

¶100

vicinity of Amravati City or Amravati Rural Area within

¶101

.....14/-

¶102

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶103

¶104

the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Parimandal No.2. Despite the said order, his presence is
witnessed by the witnesses on 18.7.2024 which
sufficiently shows that he contravened the said order and
his involvement reveals in the commission of the crime
and, therefore, his application for grant of bail deserves to
be rejected.

¶105

In this view of the matter, I proceed to pass following order:

¶106

ORDER

¶107

(1) Criminal Application (BA) No.692/2025 and
Criminal Application (BA) No.699/2025 are allowed.

¶108

(2) Applicants Trushal @ Dadu Dipak Jambhulkar and

¶109

Yash Shashikant Kate shall be released on bail on their
executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac by each of
them and one solvent surety of the like amount by each of
them in connection with Crime No.429/2024 registered

¶110

with the non-applicant/police station for offences under

¶111

.....15/-

¶112

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶113

¶114

Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 4 and 25
of the Arms Act and under Sections 135 and 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.

¶115

(3) They shall attend the concerned police station twice a
month i.e. on 1st and 15th of every month and the police
station officer shall record their presence.

¶116

(4) They shall attend the proceedings before the trial
court without seeking any exemption, unless there are
exceptional circumstances.

¶117

(5) They shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement or threat or promise to any witnesses
acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶118

(6) They shall not indulge in the similar type of activities
and single registration of the offence would lead to
cancellation of bail granted in their favour.

¶119

.....16/-

¶120

472 ba690, 692, and 699.25

¶121

¶122

(7) Criminal Application (BA) No.690/2025 of applicant

¶123

Samir Nagesh Dongare is hereby rejected.

¶124

Applications are disposed of.

¶125

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶126

!! BrWankhede !!

¶127

...../-

Trushal @ Dadu S/O Dipak v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Rajapeth, Dist. Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trushal @ Dadu S/O Dipak v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Rajapeth, Dist. Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Shaligram Babariya vs the State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer

Naresh S/O Tarachand Motghare and Others. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Irshad Sabri S/O Mohammad Akbar Sabri and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Sadar, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur City, Nagpur and Anr.

Aditya S/O Devanand Das vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Civil Lines Akola Tq and Dist Akola

Yash Shashikant Kate Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Rajapeth Amravati

Aashiya Khurshid W/O Shakil Ahmed and Others. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ganeshpeth Nagpur City Nagpur