AKSHAY SANJAY HAKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:6658
                                                1             45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2458 OF 2025

                                     AKSHAY SANJAY HAKE
                                            VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
                      Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande
                           APP for Respondent : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
                                                ...
                                              WITH
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2573 OF 2025

                               RAHUL @ VICKY SHARAD KOKANE
                                            VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                        Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Samadhan H. Jadhav
                           APP for Respondent : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
                                               …
                                           AND/WITH
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1795 OF 2025

                                  KISHOR @ APPA GULAB PATIL
                                            VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
                        Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Samadhan H. Jadhav
                           APP for Respondent : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
                                                ...

                                         CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                         DATE       :   02-02-2026
                PER COURT:-

                1.   The applicants seek regular bail in connection with Crime

                No.67 of 2020 dated 18.07.2020 registered with Mohadi-nagar

                Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under
                               2             45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



Sections 302, 120B, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the

Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. In the said

crime, the applicants, accused No.7/Akshay, accused No.22 Rahul

@ Vicky and accused Kishor were arrested on 22.07.2020,

30.11.2020 and 20.08.2020.


2.   The previous applications presented by the applicant bearing

Bail Applications No. 615 of 2020, 1395 of 2021, 1716 of

2021,1286 of 2022 and 1814 of 2023, were dismissed by the

orders of this Court, dated 09.09.2020, 01.04.2022, 12.01.2022,

21.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, respectively.


3.   The prosecution case is that on 17.07.2020, accused Akash

had abused the deceased and assaulted Rushikesh, friend of

complainant, at the hotel of the deceased.     On 18.07.2020 at

about 12.00 noon, Rushikesh was admitted in Deore Hospital,

Dhule.   The complainant along with Rahul, Bansi, Shubham and

Ravindra went to see the Rushikesh in the hospital and thereafter,

they returned to the hotel of the deceased. At about 1.30 p.m.

while they were taking tea at the hotel, the accused persons

named in the first information report along with three to four

unknown persons approached the said hotel on motorcycles. They

parked motorcycles opposite the hotel and started abusing the
                               3             45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



deceased. Accused Akash was armed with koyta, accused Rahul

and Ganesh were armed with country made pistol and accused

Karan and Ajay were armed with iron rod, accused Sunil was

armed with knife and started proceeding towards deceased giving

abuses. The accused persons were having firearms with them

opened fire from the pistols. The complainant hide himself in a

hotel situated by the side of the road, informed the incident to

Rahul, brother of the deceased, and and the companions started

running towards backside of the hotel. The complainant seen that

the accused accosted the deceased near a bridge situated by the

side of the road near Desan Cold Storage and assaulted and

caused serious injuries to he deceased by means of weapons

available with them, thereafter, accused ran away on their

motorcycle.

     The complainant and his companions, Shubham, Bansi,

Ravindra went near the Rahul and saw him lying in pool of blood

having sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to the

Civil Hospital, Dhule. The Medical Officer declared the deceased

dead. Hence, the report is lodged.


4.   Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no prima

facie case exists, as the applicants are not visible in the CCTV

footage of the incident, indicating their non-involvement. It is

contended that several co-accused have already been enlarged on

bail, including Ajay Uttam Bhandare and Akshay Sanjay Chaugule
                                 4             45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



by this Court (BA/1383/2021 on 29.08.2022 and BA/1004/2025 on

07.08.2025), and Hemant @ Vicky Sanjay Hake, Mahendra Sharad

Kokane, Sunny Thorat, Mohit Manass, Rahul Baviskar, Deepak Raju

Koli, and Dnayneshwar @ Kenya Kadhare by the Sessions Court

between 01.10.2022 and 25.11.2025. Although co-accused Akshay

played a major role by allegedly firing at the deceased and a pistol

was recovered from him, the present applicants have no overt acts

attributed to them, and nothing has been recovered from their

possession.


5.   It is further submitted that the applicants have been in jail

for over five years, facing what amounts to pre-trial conviction

while the trial proceeds at a snail's pace with no witnesses

examined to date. As the investigation is complete and the

chargesheet is filed, and since the applicants have no criminal

antecedents, it is argued that the provisions of MCOC are not

attracted. The counsel emphasized that the applicants are not a

flight risk, will not tamper with evidence, and deserve bail solely

on the grounds of long incarceration and the principle of parity, as

juvenile accused with similar roles have also been released.


6.   The      learned   APP   strongly   opposed   the    application,

contending that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly

armed with deadly weapons, including a koyta, pistols, and iron

rods, specifically targeting the deceased in broad daylight. He
                                   5              45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



submitted that the delay in the supplementary statement is

immaterial given the gravity of the brutal assault and the specific

roles attributed in the FIR. Furthermore, the provisions of MCOC

are squarely attracted due to the organized nature of the crime,

and the mere fact that some co-accused were granted bail on

parity does not diminish the individual involvement of the present

applicants. Hence, prayed for the rejection of the bail application

to ensure the integrity of the trial.


7.    Having heard the respective counsel from both the sides and

upon perusal of the material on record, including the charge sheet

indicates that the trial has commenced and the investigating

agency recorded statements of several witnesses, which are to be

examined during the trial. At this stage, it would be premature and

legally improper to engage in detail as to the reliability of those

statements. The merits of the bail application must be weighed

strictly against the prima facie case established on the basis of

evidence    collected   during    the   investigation,    the    eventual

chargesheet and the statutory bar under the special enactment

that in the instant case, weigh heavily against the applicant.


8.    The Honourable Apex Court, in the 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 :
                                6              45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt




        “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 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.)


        12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications
        have been rejected there is a further onus on the court
        to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail
        by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail
        applications have been rejected and after such
        consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has
        to be granted then said court will have to given specific
        reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the
        subsequent application for bail should be granted.”



9.   Similarly, the Honourable Apex Court, in the 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.
                                 7              45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt




10.   The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Ram Govind

Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598], has held

that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be exercised

whimsically, especially in heinous offences.


11.   Equally, the Honourable Apex Court, in the case of State of

UP through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21],

has held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence

showing the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible

and supports the accusations, bail may be refused.


12.   The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], has held

that the mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind,

and outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including

reasonable ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and

possibility of justice being thwarted.


13.   Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the accused persons are

charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, and

149, read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the

accused persons, with common intention, attacked and assaulted

the deceased with deadly weapons, including a country-made

pistol, koyta, and iron rod. Thus, it is difficult to decipher at this

stage which specific accused caused the fatal injury to the person.
                                 8              45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



When the accused are charged for offences punishable under

Section 149 of the IPC and their presence is established as part of

an unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act of each

accused is neither significant nor relevant. This aspect is no longer

res integra in light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court

in the case of Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of Uttar

Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No. 97 and 98 of

2022, dated 25.01.2022.


14.   In light of the aforesaid facts and settled legal precedents, it

is prima facie evident that this was a broad daylight murder

executed with precision, where the prima facie complicity of the

present applicants is clearly established. Although the applicant

claims a clean record, the appropriate authority has duly granted

sanction under the MCOC Act; as such, the stringent rigors of

Section 21(4) of the Act squarely apply. The record prima facie

indicates a clear nexus between the applicant and the organized

crime syndicate.


15.   The plea of parity raised by the learned counsel for the

applicant does not hold water in the eyes of the law. While it is

true that certain co-accused were enlarged on bail, several among

them were juveniles, whose cases are governed by distinct

reformative principles under the Juvenile Justice Act.


16.   Apart from the ground of parity, which has been addressed,
                                 9              45-BA-2458,1795,2573-25.odt



the applicants have failed to raise any fresh or compelling change

in circumstances. Considering the gravity of the offense and the

ongoing testimony of witnesses, the risk of tampering with the

remaining prosecution evidence remains a significant concern.


17.   Accordingly, the bail applications are rejected.




                                 [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                         JUDGE


rrd