SURESH @SURAJ SHAHJI JAGTAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

HEMANT                H.C.SHIV                                                     915.BA1196.26.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV

Digitally signed by              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HEMANT                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.09.18
20:40:46 +0300                   CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2026
                      Suresh @ Suraj Shahji Jagtap                            …Applicant
                                 V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                                …Respondent


                      Mr. Ravi Dwivedi with Sainath Baji, Aishwarya Pandi and Sakshi
                      Singh for the Applicant.
                      Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State.
                      Ms. Dipali Pawase, PSI, RCF police station present.


                                                   CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                   DATED :       17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.         Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.         The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.r.
                      No.438 of 2024, registered with R.C.F. police station, Mumbai for
                      offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2), 115(2), 352,
                      351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
                      2023 (“BNS”), Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1)
                      (a), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on the report dated 22 nd
                      July, 2024 filed by the first informant.

                      3.         The prosecution case is that, on 21 st July 2024, about 9.30 to
                      10.00 pm, near the house of the informant, the applicant along with
                      co-accused persons assaulted the deceased, namely, Siddharth
                      Kamble with fist and kick blows. During the said assault, all of
                      sudden accused-Sitaram Jagtap (A1) removed knife and stabbed the
                      deceased on various parts of body, as a result, the deceased
                      succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to
                      be registered and accused persons including the applicant came to

                                                         Page 1 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                                   915.BA1196.26.DOC



be arrested. The completion of the investigation led to filing of the
charge-sheet. The trial Court refused to release the applicant on
bail. Hence, this application.

4.         Mr.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that, no weapon was used by the applicant in the incident. The role
attributed to co-accused Rupesh Kamble, Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar
Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is identical. Said co-accused have
been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail applying the principle of parity.

5.         In reply, Mr.Chate, learned APP submitted that although the
role attributed to the applicant and said co-accused Rupesh Kamble,
Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is similar to
same extent, the applicant had instigated the co-accused persons to
assault the informant. Additionally, the learned APP submitted that,
recently, FIR No.211 of 2025 came to be registered against the
associates of the accused persons for threatening the complainant
that because of him, the accused in this crime are in jail. Thus, there
is a possibility that the applicant may influence upon the witnesses
and dissuade them from testifying against them. He, therefore,
urged to reject the application.

6.         I have considered the submissions. The text of the Report
indicates that the role attributed to the applicant, Rupesh Kamble,
Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is similar to
some extent. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Chate, learned
APP, the applicant unnecessarily instigated the co-accused persons
to assault the informant. As a result, co-accused Sudhakar Ausarmal
caught hold of the informant from behind, while Rupesh Kamble
assaulted him with fist blows on his stomach. Thereafter, Sagar
Kamble sat on his person and gave him fist blows. When the

                                 Page 2 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                                    915.BA1196.26.DOC



deceased tried to intervene, at that juncture, A1 stabbed him with
knife. Thus, prima facie it appears that since there was instigation
by the applicant, therefore, the assault escalated to the murder.
These circumstances distinguishes the case against the applicant
from his co-accused.

7.         The applicant had three criminal antecedents as under :-
 Sr.          Crime No.         Police Station           Sections
 No.
  1        Cr. No. 74/2010    RCF police station, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w
                                  Mumbai                 34 of IPC
     2     Cr. No. 247/2013        ….’’….         326, 323, 504, 506 (ii)
                                                       r/w 34 of IPC
     3     Cr. No. 35/2010         ….’’….          324,323,427,504 r/w
                                                         34 of IPC



8.         Mr.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant tendered the
copies of judgments in the said cases, thereby, the applicant has
been acquitted in the said cases. However, it is necessary to note
that in Serial No.1, the informant was not traceable and, two
witnesses did not support the prosecution on the point of assault to
the informant and him sustaining injury. In Serial No.2 also, the
witnesses did not support the prosecution, notwithstanding the case
was involving the charge of a serious offence of Section 326 IPC. In
fact, the judgment indicate that, initially, the witness supported the
prosecution, but, in the cross-examination gave such admissions as
if she was hostile to the prosecution. It was also because, the offence
was settled outside the Court. In Serial No.3 also, the complainant
as well as the injured witness did not depose against the applicant
as the matter was compromised. Thus it is clear that the acquittals
were not on merit. In all the three cases, A1 was also the co-accused.
These circumstances prima facie indicate that since there was
influence of the applicant and A1 over the witnesses in the said old

                                  Page 3 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                                      915.BA1196.26.DOC



cases, therefore, the injured and other material witnesses did not
support the prosecution. In the case in hand also the Report clearly
mentions that A1 and the applicant have their influence in Mukund
Nagar area where the informant and other witnesses have been
residing. Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the applicant
is released on bail in this case, there is every possibility that he will
exercise strong influence over the witnesses and compel them not to
appear before the trial Court and, if appeared, then not to depose in
favour of the prosecution .

9.         In the wake of above, there is no merit in the application. As a
result, the application is liable to be rejected and, is rejected,
accordingly.

10.        It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order
are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.



                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                   Page 4 of 4