Viraj Ganesh Karande vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2018 dated 24.02.2018 registered with Hatkanangale Police Station, Kolhapur, for the ofences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said crime, applicant/accused No.4 was arrested on 01.07.2019. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet is iled on 05.07.2020.

¶12

The prosecution case is that on 23.02.2018 at 12.35 a.m. the informant was traveling by motorcycle from Hatkanangale to Narande after work. Three unidentiied men with masked faces approached from behind on another motorcycle and forced him of the road. One assailant assaulted the informant while the others robbed him of his wallet, mobile phone, motorcycle, and cash of Rs.5,000/-.

¶13

34-BA-114-26.odt

¶14

2

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime, as there is no evidence of the presence of the applicant at the scene or any speciic role attributed to the applicant in its commission. Further, no recovery has been made at the instance of the applicant. Since the informant and the accused are strangers, and no Test Identiication Parade (TIP) was conducted, the identity of the applicant remains unestablished.

¶16

The applicant has already been incarcerated for over six years and eight months without any signiicant progress in the trial. Considering that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been iled, the continued incarceration of the applicant is unjustiied, especially as the trial is likely to be protracted. It is submitted that the applicant was already enlarged on bail via order dated 07.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 33 of 2018 at Kodoli Police Station. Hence, prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the application, contending that the applicant played an active role in this serious ofence. In the wake of applicant's criminal antecedents and the suicient evidence on record, the prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

¶18

Upon considering the submissions of both sides and perusing

¶19

34-BA-114-26.odt

¶20

3

¶21

the record, including the chargesheet and witness statements, the Court inds that, prima facie , no identiication parade was conducted to establish the applicant’s identity. The prosecution's case is notably weakened by this absence of a Test Identiication Parade and the fact that no incriminating recovery was made from the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has already undergone prolonged incarceration of over six years and eight months, and considering that the investigation is complete, further custodial interrogation is no longer required.

¶22

Even when the prosecution highlights the applicant’s a prior criminal antecedents, it is settled principles of law in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2020) 11 SCC 648, that the mere existence of criminal antecedents does not constitute ground to deny bail, if the facts fail to establish a prima facie necessity for continued incarceration.

¶23

Particularly, as the applicant has already been granted bail in another related matter. Since the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, continued coninement is deemed unjustiied and unwarranted.

¶24

The investigation is completed for all intent and purpose, resultantly, the chargesheet is iled. Having regard to the number witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within a

¶25

34-BA-114-26.odt

¶26

4

¶27

reasonable period. As such, further incarceration of the applicant as an under-trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to be either warranted or justiiable. So far as apprehension expressed by the learned APP is concerned, it can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of applicant.

¶28

Hence, the following order:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The bail application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) Applicant, Viraj Ganesh Karande, be released on bail, upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.46 of 2018 dated 24.02.2018 registered with Hatkanangale Police Station, Kolhapur, for the ofences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following conditions that :-

¶32

(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

¶33

(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless exempted by the trial Court and shall not leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial.

¶34

5 34-BA-114-26.odt

¶35

(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to the Investigating Oicer and detailed address and phone numbers and two of the near relatives.

¶36

(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶37

(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be inluenced by the same.

¶38

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE

¶39

rrd

Viraj Ganesh Karande v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viraj Ganesh Karande v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maruti Rajaram Gavali vs Police Inspector, Police Station, Vishrambag, and Ors.

Krushna Tukaram Khutale and Others vs Kishor Totaram Lulla and Others

Krushna Tukaram Khutale and Others vs Kishor Totaram Lulla and Others

Anil Gajanan Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Madhukar Awale vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Vasant Chougule vs State of Maharashtra