KULDEEP @ BHOLA MUKESH KAJANIYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WAKLE
MANOJ                 MANOJ                                                57-BA-2296-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.02           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
18:19:42 +0530
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2296 OF 2026
                      Kuldeep @ Bhola Mukesh Kajaniya                      …Applicant
                              V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent


                      Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w Adv. Jinay Jain, for the Applicant.
                      Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State.
                      PSI – S. Palkar, Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane, present.


                                                CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.      Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP tendered the Report dated
                      30th July, 2026 received from Police Inspector (Crimes),
                      Ulhasnagar Police Station. It is taken on record and marked “X”.

                      2.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                      3.      The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an
                      FIR bearing Cr.No.313 of 2023, registered with Ulhasnagar Police
                      Station, for the offence punishable under under Sections 302, 307,
                      143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the
                      Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

                      4.      The prosecution case is that, the informant used to do
                      labour work of cleaning cattle shed of co-accused Nitin Kajaniya
                      and the applicant. Since the informant had left that work,
                      therefore, said both accused developed grudge against the
                      informant. As a result, all the accused including a juvenile boy in
                      conflict with law formed an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution
                      of the common object of their unlawful assembly, they assaulted

                                                     Page 1 of 3
MANOJ                                              57-BA-2296-2026.DOC



the informant on 22nd May, 2023, at about 4:00 a.m., while the
informant and his friend Sunil Nikam were slept at the house of
one Vicky. During the incident, the co-accused Nitin, Chintu
Bhagwane @ Chindu and the juvenile body assaulted Sunil Nikam
by means of iron rod and wooden sticks and the remaining
accused including the applicant assaulted him with fists and kicks.
Consequently, Sunil Nikam suffered grievous injury. After 8 days
Sunil Nikam succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, aforesaid crime
was registered and the accused were arrested. On completion of
investigation police submitted the charge-sheet.

5.      The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail.
Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court for bail by filing
Bail Application No.3545 of 2024. Said Application was rejected
on merits vide Order dated 25th June, 2025. The applicant assailed
that Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Petition(s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11871 of 2025. However, said
Appeal was withdrawn.

6.      Ms. Khan, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant is pressing this Application for bail only on the
ground of incarceration. She submitted that the applicant was
arrested on 23rd May 2023. Till the date, he is incarcerated for
more than 3 years and 4 months. Only charge is framed in the case
and the trial has not advanced thereafter. Therefore, she urged to
release the applicant on bail.

7.      In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP submitted that the
applicant has eleven criminal antecedents. Therefore and having
regard to the manner in which the alleged offence is committed,
the applicant is not entitled for bail.


                                 Page 2 of 3
MANOJ                                                57-BA-2296-2026.DOC



8.      I have considered these submissions. The report submitted
by the learned APP states that, excluding this case the applicant
has 11 criminal antecedents. Out of it, two are bodily offences. One
is of 2017, under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of the IPC and another
is of 2020, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
Record indicates that the informant was assaulted at 4:00 a.m.
when he and the deceased were slept and not in a position to
escape. The deceased was assaulted only because he had tried to
rescue the informant. These circumstance indicate that the
applicant has no regard for law nor its fear. He has tendency to
misuse the bail liberty and commit bodily offences and create
threat in the mind of general public. If the applicant is released on
bail, he is likely to commit similar offence.

9.      In the wake of above, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
As a result, the application fails and liable to be rejected.
Application is rejected, accordingly.

10.     It is clarified that the observation made in the present Order
and rejection of the prayer for the bail will not be treated as
findings on the merit of the case.



                                (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                               Page 3 of 3