Omkar Sunil Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.440 of 2025 registered with Dighi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 324, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, which took place on 09^th September 2025, the present Applicant and the other co-accused were armed with deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused persons robbed Rs.12,000/- from the complainant’s car, damaged

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

Mugdha

¶14

2 944-ABA 593-26.doc

¶15

multiple vehicles, threatened to kill the complainant and created terror in the area. Accordingly, the present crime came to be registered.

¶16

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the transcription of the CCTV footage does not show the involvement of the present Applicant in the crime in question. It is submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, submits that till conclusion of the trial, the Applicant is ready and willing to stay out of the Pune District.

¶18

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the Applicant is involved in a serious case of rioting. It is submitted that multiple vehicles were damaged by the present Applicant and the other co-accused. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

I have perused the transcription of the CCTV footage and video recordings. There is no reference to the present Applicant in the transcription. Considering the said fact, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:-

2 of 3

Mugdha

3 944-ABA 593-26.doc

ORDER

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶25

ii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.440 of 2025 registered with Dighi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 324, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶26

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the Applicant shall not enter into the limits of Pune District, except to attend the dates before the trial court.

¶27

iv. The Applicant shall not commit any other crime.

¶28

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Mugdha

Omkar Sunil Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar Sunil Mahajan v. The 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

Sudha Swamy vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Bhagwant Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamlesh Gondalia and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Manisha Ayyagari vs Captain Sreeram Ayyagari and Anr.

Captain Sreeram Ayyagari vs Manisha Ayyagari and Anr.

Sukanya Ajinkya Gaikwad vs Ajinkya Ramakant Gaikwad