Bombay High Court
RAHUL @ CHANDRASHEKHAR SHIVAJI RAJGURUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted bail to the accused on the condition of a Rs 30,000 bond and sureties, subject to standard bail conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Rahul @ Chandrashekhar Shivaji Rajguru, was charged under Sections 395, 457 and 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly robbing gold and silver ornaments from a jewellery shop on 8 November 2023. He has been in custody for more than two years with no progress in the trial, while the co‑accused have been arrested earlier and the stolen ornaments have been recovered. The prosecution argued that the applicant has antecedents and could abscond or tamper with witnesses if released on bail. The defence contended that there was no recovery of any ornaments from the applicant and that the prolonged detention without trial warranted bail. The court, after hearing both sides, granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 30,000 with one or two sureties, imposing conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and ordered his attendance at the police station as required.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences and his antecedents
- Whether the delay of over two years in trial warrants bail
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 380, 395, 457
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Indian Penal Code
- delay in trial
- surety
- criminal procedure
Judgment
4-BA-4671-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4671 OF 2025
Rahul @ Chandrashekhar Shivaji Rajguru ….Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent
Digitally signed
by SONALI
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI SATISH
KILAJE
SATISH Date:
KILAJE 2026.02.04
10:50:22
+0700
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b. Mr. Sumit Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the Respondent-State.
API – Sunil Badgujar, Manchor Police Station present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
C.R.No. 663 of 2023 registered with Manchar Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 395, 457, 380 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 08.11.2023, around 3.15 am, the
applicant and co-accused robbed gold and silver ornaments from jewellery
shop of the first informant.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is behind bars for more than two years. There is no progress in
Page 1 of 3
4-BA-4671-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
the trial. The co-accused were arrested by the police on the terrace of one
building but the applicant was arrested later on. There is no recovery at
the instance of the applicant and requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant and co-
accused robbed gold ornaments from the jewellery shop of the first
informant. The said ornaments are recovered. The applicant has
antecedents. If the applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten
prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet
and documents produced on record. The police have arrested co-accused
from the terrace of one building. It is alleged that the applicant was
arrested later on. There is no recovery at the instance of the applicant.
The applicant is behind bars for more than two years and two months.
There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following
order.
ORDER
i. The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 663 of
2023 registered with Manchar Police Station, Pune, on
executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on furnishing one
or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
Page 2 of 3
4-BA-4671-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
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.
6. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.
7. 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.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…