Bombay High Court
NIKHIL NITIN JAGTAPversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail and granted the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Nikhil Nitin Jagtap, was arrested in connection with a violent incident on 12 January 2022 that involved assault, murder and alleged participation in an organised crime syndicate, and was charged under multiple IPC sections, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOC). The prosecution alleged that Jagtap was part of a gang led by Nikhil Patil, citing FIR statements, CCTV footage and the fact that other co‑accused had been granted bail despite serious roles. The defence argued that there was no material establishing a nexus between Jagtap and the organised crime syndicate, highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, the absence of a test‑identification parade, and pointed out that Jagtap had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for over four years. The court examined the statutory requirement under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, noting that bail can be granted if reasonable grounds exist that the accused is not likely to commit further offences and that a nexus with the syndicate is not proven. Finding prima facie that no sufficient evidence linked Jagtap to the organised crime network and considering the lengthy pre‑trial detention, the court allowed the bail application with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, charged under the MCOC Act, is entitled to bail despite allegations of involvement in an organised crime syndicate.
- Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the applicant and the organised crime syndicate.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of committing further offences if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3(25), 4(25)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 3, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 341, 427
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act — s. 21(4), 2(1)(d), 23(2), 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)
Subjects
- bail
- MCOC Act
- organised crime
- conspiracy
- pre‑trial detention
- nexus
- IPC offences
- CCTV evidence
- test identification parade
Judgment
ba-1273-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2026
Nikhil Nitin Jagtap …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Chinmay Godse and
Mr. Ranjan Gurnani i/b. Mr. Kishan Chaudhari, for the Applicant.
Dr. Dhanlakshmi Krishnaiyer, APP, for the Respondent- State.
VISHAL
SUBHASH CORAM : SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026
Date: 2026.10.01
17:44:34 +0530
P.C.
1. The Applicant, who is arraigned as accused No. 4 in C.R. No.
20 of 2022 registered with Lonikand Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 143, 147, 148,
149, 427, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Sections 3
and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; Sections 3(25), 4(25)
of the Arms Act; Sections 37(1), 37(3) read with Section 135 of
the Maharashtra Police Act; and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
of the MCOC Act, has preferred this application to enlarge him on
bail.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the original
complainant, namely Minal Sachin Shinde, lodged an FIR with
Lonikand Police Station, Pune and stated that her husband Sachin
Vishal Parekar ...1
ba-1273-2026
Shinde and brother-in-law Harshal Shinde are in jail in connection
with the murder of one Sachin Nanasaheb Shinde. It is further the
case that on 12.01.2022 at 11:00 a.m., the complainant along with
the driver Dnyaneshwar Gyanba Chavan, Kumar Maruti Shinde
and Prathamesh alias Sunny Kumar Shinde had gone to the
Shivajinagar Court in the Maruti Swift vehicle for the hearing of
the bail application of the complainant's husband. It is further the
case that after the court work was over, at around 6:00 p.m. to
6:30 p.m., while returning home at Zilla Parishad Primary School's
back road, one yellow-coloured dumper was standing and at that
time, one black Safari car came there and was placed horizontally
in front of their car.
3. It is further the case that at that time, some persons got
down from the said car, namely Nikhil Patil, Rugved Walke, Rutik
Kinkar, the present applicant, Ketan alias Mauli Kolte, Abhishek
Ghavane, Shubham Wabale, Pratik Khande and four to five other
unknown persons. It is the case that Nikhil Patil had a pistol in his
hand and Rugved Walke, Rutik Kinkar and Abhishek Ghavane had
iron sickles in their hands, while others were carrying wooden
sticks in their hands. It is further the case that they all
surrounded the said car and tried to open it. Further, they
Vishal Parekar ...2
ba-1273-2026
smashed the glass of the said car with the sickle and wooden
sticks in their hands and opened the car door. It is further the case
of the prosecution that at that time, Nikhil Patil came near the
said car and said that they have killed his brother Sachin and that
he will also kill them. It is further the case that the complainant
was pulled out of the car and thereafter Nikhil Patil and his
accomplices attacked Sunny Shinde with a sickle and pulled him
out of the car. It is further the case that Pratik Khande gave a
sickle into the hands of Nikhil Patil and other persons attacked
Kumar Shinde with a sickle and dragged him out of the car and
brought him behind the car near Sunny and they all began to beat
him with iron sickles and wooden sticks. It is further the case that
upon seeing this, the driver and the complainant went to rescue
them. It is further the case of the complainant that one Ketan
assaulted the complainant with an iron sickle on her right hand
and at that point of time, she fell down. It is further the case that
the present applicant hit the driver who panicked and ran away. It
is further the case that thereafter Nikhil Patil, Rugved Walke,
Rutik Kinkar, Mauli Kolte, Pratik Khande, and Shubham Wabale
picked up big stones lying on the road and threw them onto the
heads of Sunny Shinde and Kumar Shinde; after that, the
Vishal Parekar ...3
ba-1273-2026
complainant ran away from the spot and went to Lonikand Police
Station and informed the police about the incident.
4. It is further the case that on the basis of the complaint
lodged by the complainant, offences vide C.R. No. 20 of 2022 were
registered with Lonikand Police Station. Thereafter, investigation
was triggered, and the applicant came to be arrested on
15.01.2022.
5. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses
were recorded, CCTV footages were collected, recoveries were
effected etc. Further during the course of investigation, it was
further revealed that there was sufficient evidence to prove
continuous unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate
headed by Nikhil Patil, the gang leader, and more than one charge-
sheet in respect of cognizable cases having punishment of three
years or more has been filed against the gang leader before the
competent courts within the preceding ten years and the
competent courts have taken cognizance of the said charge-sheets.
It is further the case that after completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted his report to the competent
authority, i.e , the Additional Director General of Police and
Commissioner of Police, Pune City, inter alia requesting therein to
Vishal Parekar ...4
ba-1273-2026
accord sanction for prosecution of 24 accused persons, including
the wanted accused who is the gang leader, namely Nikhil
Devanand Patil, for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act.
It is further the case that on 26th April 2022, the Additional
Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Pune City,
was pleased to grant sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOC
Act. It is further the case that after obtaining the necessary
permission for sanction of prosecution from the competent
authority, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons
before the Special Court under the MCOC Act, Shivajinagar, Pune,
on 10.05.2022 and it was numbered as Special Case No. 328 of
2022. It is further the case that a supplementary charge-sheet
was also submitted before the Special Court under the MCOCA Act,
Shivajinagar, Pune, on 06.10.2022.
6. The learned Senior Counsel Shri. Pasbola, appearing for the
applicant submitted that in the present C.R. No. 20 of 2022, out of
24 accused, 12 accused have been granted bail. He further
submitted that the two co-accused who have been released on bail
had actually assaulted the deceased with weapons and despite
such being the accusation and the role, the Court has been pleased
to release the accused on bail. The learned counsel further
Vishal Parekar ...5
ba-1273-2026
submitted that on the point of conspiracy, the statements of
witnesses have been recorded after 48 days of the alleged
incident. He further submitted that although the applicant was
named by the complainant as the one who assaulted the driver
Dnyaneshwar Chavan, however, Dnyaneshwar Chavan in his
statement has not even whispered about the role of the present
applicant. The learned counsel further submitted that there are no
criminal antecedents against the present applicant, whereas the
co-accused persons with a graver role, who had criminal
antecedents, have been released on bail by the Trial Court and the
same has not been challenged by the State. He further submitted
that there is nothing to show that the Applicant is a part of the
organised crime syndicate. He further submitted that the
applicant is in custody for more than four years, and till date only
charge has been framed and that there are around more than 80
witnesses cited by the prosecution, which will take a considerably
long time for the trial to conclude; hence, he prayed that the
applicant be released on bail.
7. Per contra, the Ld. APP submitted that the offence is serious
and it is a case of conspiracy where the applicant and other co-
accused have brutally committed the murder of two persons. She
Vishal Parekar ...6
ba-1273-2026
submitted that the applicant has been specifically named in the
FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C ( Section 183 of BNSS). She submitted that the applicant is
a part of an organized crime syndicate and is closely associated
with Nikhil Patil, who is the gang leader and who is absconding
since the date of the offence. She submitted that the CCTV footage
obtained from the house of Nanasaheb Shinde, who is accused No.
1, shows that the applicant, along with other accused, were
moving in a suspicious manner two days before the incident as
well as on the date of the incident. The Ld. APP further submitted
that considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the
provisions of the MCOCA Act have been invoked and the sanction
has been granted under MCOCA, taking into consideration the
gravity of the offence and the activities of the organised crime
syndicate.
8. I have considered the rival submissions.
9. The complainant has named the applicant in the statement
under Section 161 Cr.PC ( Section 180 of BNSS), by stating that
the driver was assaulted by the present applicant with something,
because of which he got scared and ran away. In her statement
recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC ( Section 183 of BNSS), she
Vishal Parekar ...7
ba-1273-2026
has improved her version and stated that the present applicant
assaulted the driver with a sickle on the face. However, the
statement of the driver was also recorded; who has not even
whispered about the applicant having assaulted him. On the
contrary, he states that one person amongst them assaulted him
by means of a wooden rod. The prosecution has not even
conducted a Test Identification (TI) parade to establish the
identity of the assailant. Further, accused Shubham Waghale, who
was named in the FIR as well as in the 164 statement as the
person who assaulted, has been released on bail by the Trial Court
even though there were criminal antecedents against him, which
order has not been challenged.
10. Much emphasis was laid by the Ld. APP on the fact that the
applicant was seen in the CCTV footage along with other accused,
suspiciously moving on a bike. The Ld. APP therefore submitted
that he was involved in a conspiracy along with the absconding
accused Nikhil Patil, who is the kingpin of the syndicate. I have
gone through the CCTV footage panchnama dated 15.01.2022,
which is with respect to the footage of 12.01.2022 and the CCTV
footage panchnama dated 20.01.2022, which is with respect to the
footage of 10.01.2022. In the CCTV footage panchnama dated
Vishal Parekar ...8
ba-1273-2026
10.01.2022, the applicant is shown to be having some
conversation with the other accused. In the CCTV footage dated
12.01.2022, the applicant is shown to be arriving on his bike at
15:38 hours and leaving at 15:39 hours, i.e, within one minute.
The other accused Abhishek Lange, Atharva Khand, whose names
are also mentioned in the CCTV footage panchnama, have been
released on bail by the Special Court, Pune. Even Rishikesh
Argade, whose name is mentioned as being seen in the CCTV
footage of 10.01.2022, has been released on bail by the High Court
vide order dated 30.07.2024. Most importantly, the co-accused
Abhishek Gavhane, who was also having criminal antecedents and
was also named in the FIR, though not named in the 164
statement has been granted bail. The Ld. APP submitted that the
present applicant is named in the FIR as well as in the statement
recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC, however, a proper perusal
would show that the version in the 164 statement is an
improvised version and therefore prima facie, the credibility is
diminished.
11. The statements of witnesses Shreyas Yashwant, Sourav
Yadav, and Saurabh Kand show that they had organized cricket
matches in the memory of late Sachin Shinde between 06.01.2022
Vishal Parekar ...9
ba-1273-2026
to 09.01.2022 and on the fourth day of the match, accused Nikhil
Patil, Sonya Bhandare, Rigved Walke, Rutik Kinikar, Rohan
Thorat, Pratik Kand, Ganesh Bhalerao, Mauli Kolte, Ganesh Raut,
Atharva Kand and the present applicant had come to the venue of
the match and at that time, the witnesses heard the discussions
amongst them that Sunny Shinde has been released on bail and
that they have to take revenge of murder of Sachin Shinde.
Shreyas Yashwant, although names the applicant in his
statement, however, the two other witnesses, namely Sourav
Yadav and Saurabh Kand, who were also present, do not name the
present applicant.
12. I am conscious of the fact that a person accused of offences
punishable under the MCOC Act cannot be enlarged on bail unless
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. I am also
conscious of the proposition that in view of the definition of
"continuing unlawful activity" under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC
Act, it is not the requirement of law that two charge-sheets for
cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for three years
or more need to be filed against each of the members of such
Vishal Parekar ...10
ba-1273-2026
syndicate. It is the membership of the organized crime syndicate
which makes a person liable under the MCOC Act.
13. What merits consideration is the nexus of the person with
the organized crime syndicate. The fulcrum of the offence of
organized crime is the nexus with the organized crime syndicate.
In the present case, from the affidavit filed by the State, it can be
inferred that there are several cases filed against the kingpin, that
is, Nikhil Patil, however, apart from the offence in the present
C.R., no other case is registered against the applicant. It is not the
case of the prosecution that the applicant is arraigned in any of
the offences registered against Nikhil Patil, who is the alleged
kingpin, or other alleged members of the organized crime
syndicate as a co-accused; nor is it the case of the prosecution that
offences have been registered against the applicant individually.
14. In view of the aforesaid, it can be inferred that prima facie
there is no material to establish the nexus between the applicant
and the organized crime syndicate. It appears that the embargo
against release on bail contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21,
prima facie may not operate as far as the applicant is concerned.
15. A profitable and useful reference in this context can be made
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsing
Vishal Parekar ...11
ba-1273-2026
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1
wherein the approach of the court in a matter of consideration of
prayer for bail in the face of the embargo contained in Section
21(4) of the MCOC Act was elucidated. The observations in
paragraph 44 are reproduced hereinbelow:
”44] The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the
conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for
bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is
placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the
applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be
impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the
applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of
MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed
that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of
acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a
finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail.
However, such an offence in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not
any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an
accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having
regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and
manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.”
21. Taking into consideration the overall conspectus of the case
and the facts and circumstances of the case discussed herein
above, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a prima
facie case for grant of bail coupled with the fact that the Applicant
has already undergone more than 4 years of incarceration.
Although the charge has been framed, considering the number of
witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, there are
1 (2005) 5 SCC 294
Vishal Parekar ...12
ba-1273-2026
bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future. The
apprehension on the part of the prosecution can be taken care of
by imposing appropriate conditions.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
1] The application is allowed.
2] The applicant, Nikhil Jagtap, be released on bail in MCOC
Special Case No. 328 of 2022 arising out of C.R. No. 20 of 2022
registered with Lonikand Division, Pune City, Pune, upon
furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge,
Pune.
3] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution
witnesses.
4] The applicant shall furnish his current address and contact
number and inform if there is any change in the address and
contact number to the Special Judge.
5] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the
MCOCA SpecialJudge, Pune.
Vishal Parekar ...13
ba-1273-2026
6] The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without
the prior permission of the MCOCA Special Judge, Pune.
7) The Applicant shall deposit the passport, if any, with the MCOC
Special Court, Pune and shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Special Court, Pune.
8) The Applicant shall not indulge in any other crime of similar
nature. If the applicant is found involved in any other
offence/crime, the same will be a ground for the prosecution to
make an application for cancellation of bail.
9) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
only for the purpose of entitlement of grant of bail to the applicant
and the Trial Court shall proceed further with the matter without
being influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)
Vishal Parekar ...14
Checking your session…