Bombay High Court
AMIT MACHHINDRA SHETEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Amit Machhindra Shete, was charged in Crime No. 332 of 2024 for offences including robbery, criminal intimidation, and violations under the Arms Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act and MCOCA. The prosecution alleged that on 27 June 2024 the co‑accused attempted to rob a jewellery shop while the applicant was merely sitting in a car outside the premises. The applicant contended that he did not enter the shop, had been in custody for over 19 months without trial progress, and therefore sought regular bail. The State highlighted the applicant’s antecedent and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court, after reviewing the charge‑sheet and noting the lack of direct participation and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions. The order emphasized that the trial court must decide the case on its merits independently of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused alleged to have been merely present in a vehicle during a robbery under serious offences including MCOCA.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention (19 months) and lack of trial progress justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4(25)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 387, 398, 504, 506(II)
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 37(1)(3) read with 135
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- MCOCA
- robbery
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- surety
- trial delay
Judgment
3-BA-4101-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4101 OF 2025
Amit Machhindra Shete ...Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Vipul Dushing along with Tanmay Kate, Mr. Ashraf Kazi and Mr.
Shivdarshan Khedkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI-Uma Gawade, Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad,
present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 332 of 2024 registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station,
District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 398, 504,
506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135
of the Maharashtra Police Ac, Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 27th June 2024, the co-accused
entered the jewellery shop of the first informant and, by threatening with
Digitally
signed by sickle, attempted to rob the gold ornaments. It is alleged that at the time of
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date: the incident, the applicant was sitting in a car outside the said shop.
2026.02.24
10:48:57
+0530
Page 1 of 3
3-BA-4101-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is behind bars for more than 19 months. The allegation against
the applicant is only that he was sitting in the car outside the said shop.
The applicant neither entered the shop nor attempted to rob the first
informant’s shop. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to
allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant has one
antecedent. He was sitting in the car which had brought the co-accused for
committing the robbery. An iron rod has been recovered at the instance of
the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond. The
role of the co-accused is different from that of the present applicant.
Hence, requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record. The role attributed to the applicant is that,
at the time of the robbery, he was sitting in the car. He has not entered
into the shop of the first informant. To prove the role of the applicant in
the crime, evidence will be required. The applicant is behind bars for more
than 19 months. There is no progress in the trial. It may take time to
conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 332 of 2024
Page 2 of 3
3-BA-4101-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, District Pune,
on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…