LAXMAN ALIAS LUCKY BALAJI MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                 -1-
                                                       ba1047.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2025

Laxman Alias Lucky Balaji More                  ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                        …..Respondent

Mr. S. C. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                              DATE  : 13th JANUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Applicant has preferred this Application seeking regular bail in

connection with Crime No. 54/2021 registered with Barad Police

Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 120(B), 34, 364 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 25,

7/27 of Arms Act.



2.    Case of the prosecution is that complainant and his brother

Devidas are residents of Niwagha Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.        The

complainant had acquaintance with the present Applicant, who is

engaged in a money lending business.            The brother of the

complainant namely Devidas borrowed money from the Applicant and

on that count there was dispute between Devidas and the Applicant.
                                    -2-
                                                           ba1047.25.odt

        On 17.05.2021 at about 11.00 am, when Devidas was sitting in

front of a closed shop near Shivaji statute in the village, three

persons allegedly reached out there on motorcycle and attempted to

take away Devidas forcefully. When Devidas resisted for the same,

present Applicant took out a pistol and fired towards private part of

Devidas and took away Devidas on motorcycle towards Mudkhed.

Upon search, the dead body of Devidas was found in the agricultural

land.    On such allegations, First Information Report came to be

registered.



3.      Learned   counsel    for   the   Applicant   submits   that   after

investigation into the crime, offence under Maharashtra Control of

Organized Crimes Act came to be registered against the Applicant.

Investigation in the crime is complete and as such incarceration of

the Applicant is not warranted.          Hence, prayed for release of the

Applicant on regular bail.



4.      Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the Application

submitting that the Applicant is a history sheeter. He is involved in a

serious offence wherein the brother of the informant has lost his life.

Material on the record is sufficient to indicate the complicity of the
                                   -3-
                                                          ba1047.25.odt

Applicant wherein has used a weapon like revolver. The act of the

Applicant is pre-medidated. By drawing attention of the Court to the

serious nature of the offence, it is apprehended that the Applicant’s

release on bail would create a significant risk of tampering with

prosecution      evidence.    As   such,    Application   deserves    no

consideration.



5.    Upon considering submission of both sides and perusing the

material on record including charge-sheet, Applicant’s involvement in

the crime is prima facie apparent with weapon like pistol. Apart from

that, as much as seven offences are registered against the Applicant.

Even the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act

are also invoked against him. In any case, complicity of the Applicant

is, prima facie, apparent.



6.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and

Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528], while laying

down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences like

murder, has observed as under :


     “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
     well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
     discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
                                 -4-
                                                        ba1047.25.odt

     course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
     examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
     the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
     need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
     concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
     the accused is charged of having committed a serious
     offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
     from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
     court    granting   bail  to   consider    among     other
     circumstances, the following factors also before granting
     bail; they are:

     (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
     punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
     supporting evidence.

     (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
     witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

     (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
     charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
     and Puran v. Rambilas.)



7.    Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pralhad Singh

Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280], held that on satisfaction of

prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, the bail

can be denied. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs.

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the

principle that bail can be refused when the material produced by

prosecution establishes a clear prima facie case. The Court should

not conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the

available evidence links the accused to the alleged offence.
                                 -5-
                                                        ba1047.25.odt



8.           The record prima facie indicates that the complicity of

the applicant in the incident, coupled with the fact that, the

applicant was armed with the revolver and its firing in groin of the

victim. Post mortem report also prima facie indicates and establishes

the cause of the death of the victim is due to the fire arm with the

injuries to the chest and right thigh.    Thus, prima facie there is

overwhelming material on record to indicate complicity of the

applicant.



9.           So far as the ground of delay in trial, the same has to be

essentially assessed in the context of totality of circumstances

including the conduct of the accused, the nature of allegations and

the diligence by the prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of

Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & anr. (2012) 9

SCC 446, has held that, in cases of heinous crimes, the duration of

custody and delay in trial must be assessed in the context of totality

of circumstances such as the conduct of accused, nature of

accusations and diligence by the prosecution. In the present case,

there is no material to suggest that, the State has failed in its

obligation to prosecute the accused persons or that the right of the
                                   -6-
                                                           ba1047.25.odt

speedy trial has been obliterated in any manner. Thus, the plea of

slow progress in the trial must be weighed against the seriousness of

the charges. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of State of Bihar Vs.

Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751, has held that in

heinous offences, the mere fact of slow progress may not override the

public interest or the interest of justice.



10.   To secure bail, the applicant must establish that the evidence

collected and intended to be presented by the prosecution fails to

establish a prima facie case of the applicant's involvement in or

commission of the alleged offence. Since this necessary aspect has

not been satisfied by the applicant, the applicant is presently

disentitled to claim the bail.       In that view of the matter, Bail

Application stands rejected.



                                              (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

dyb