Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

UDAY JAYANT JAGTAPversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

Bail was denied to the applicant as the court found sufficient evidence of his involvement in a grave assault.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Uday Jayant Jagtap, accused No.5 in a violent assault case (C.R. No.45 of 2026). The prosecution alleged that Jagtap, along with two others, brutally attacked the victim with knives, as shown in CCTV footage and the victim's statement, and that the assault was motivated by prior enmity. The applicant argued that another co-accused had been granted bail and that the CCTV did not implicate him, contending the victim was the aggressor. The court examined the material evidence, found the applicant’s role clearly established and the crime heinous, and rejected the parity argument. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, denying bail to the applicant.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the seriousness of the alleged assault and the evidence linking him to the crime.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • assault
  • CCTV evidence
  • heinous crime
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Maharashtra Police Act

Judgment

                                                                           20.BA.3593.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              BAIL APPLICATION NO.3593 OF 2026

              Uday Jayant Jagtap                                      .. Applicant
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra                                .. Respondent
                                       ....................
               Mr. Himanshu S. Gavit a/w. Mr. Yogesh D. Ugale, Advocates for
                Applicant.
               Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.       Heard Mr. Gavit, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

              Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent.

              2.       This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya

              Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.

              No.45 of 2026 registered with Adgaon Police Station for offences

              punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(1), 191(2),

              191(3), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section

              135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

              3.       Applicant before the Court is arraigned as Accused No.5 in

              the crime. There are total 7 Accused persons in the crime, 3 out of

              whom namely Ganesh Salve, Uday Jagtap and Vicky Netawate have

              been specifically indicted on the basis of evidence best available with

              the prosecution namely the statement of injured victim, copy of which

              is appended at page No.162 for having assaulted the victim with knife

                                                                                       1 of 4
                                                         20.BA.3593.2026.doc


(chopper).

4.        Mr. Gavit would vehemently persuade me to consider the

fact that one of the accused person namely Vikky Netawate has been

already granted bail by Sessions Court, copy of which is appended at

page No.375. I have gone through that order and prima facie I find

that the reason stated in that order to grant bail by Sessions Court to

Vicky Netwate is on the face of record incorrect and contrary to not

only the prosecution case in the First Information Report but also the

statement of the injured victim appended at page No.162.

5.        Be that as it may, next submission made by Mr. Gavit is that

no role is attributed or can be seen in the CCTV footage procured by

prosecution qua the present Applicant.        There also Mr. Gavit is

completely wrong. The CCTV footage prima facie indicts the three

principal assailants namely Ganesh Salve, Uday Jagtap and Vicky

Netawate having grievously assaulted and injured the victim and they

are thereafter seen leaving the hotel premises with weapons as

captured in the CCTV footage 40 seconds before the said victim is

helped by his friends and moved out from the premises and taken to

the hospital.


6.        In so far as other four Accused persons are concerned, their

role is also described, inter alia, they having thrown the hotel furniture

on the injured victim in order to dislodge him because when the

injured victim had seen the three prinicipal assailants entering the

                                                                     2 of 4
                                                       20.BA.3593.2026.doc


hotel premises flashing knives (choppers) in the hands and abusing

very loudly with the intent to harm and eliminate the injured victim,

the injured victim immediately pulled the show-sword which was put

up on the hotel wall in order to ward off the aggression of the three

principal assailants including the Applicant.


7.        Though Mr. Gavit would argue that in view of the show

sword having been flashed by the victim, it was the injured victim who

was the aggressor, but the entire incident having been captured in the

CCTV footage and statement of the injured witness prima facie negates

the theory propounded by Mr. Gavit.


8.        The attack and assault by the Applicant alongwith the other

two principal protagonists namely Ganesh Salve and Vicky Netawate is

extremely brutal and heinous.      The intent of such assault and the

Medical Certificate and nature of injuries clearly show the intent to

eliminate the injured victim. While doing so as also been captured in

the CCTV footage as also in the witness statement that all 3 assailants

had administered threat to life constantly to the injured victim with

the intent of finishing and eliminating him permanently. The motive

of the crime being previous enmity is clearly borne out from the

record.


9.        Though Mr. Gavit would claim parity with Vicky Netawate,

another co-accused, however in view of the specific role of Applicant


                                                                   3 of 4
                                                                           20.BA.3593.2026.doc


               emanating from the material placed on record, I am not inclined to

               consider the case of Applicant for grant of bail.


               10.                Hence, in view of the above, considering the gravity and

               heinous nature of incident, Bail Application is therefore dismissed.



H. H. SAWANT                                                 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                           Digitally signed
                           by HARSHADA
                HARSHADA   HANUMANT
                HANUMANT   SAWANT
                SAWANT     Date:
                           2026.09.23
                           20:38:31 +0530




                                                                                       4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.