1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3485 OF 2023 Rajesh Shamlal Salunke ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aabad H. Ponda, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Karan Jain and Mr. Rushikesh S. Kale, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. Ms. Aruna Pail i/b. Mr. Mohan Rao along with Ms. Sulabha Rane and Ms. Sakshi Baadkar and Mr. Sangram Parab, Advocate for the Intervenor. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026. P.C.: 1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 413 of 2020 registered with Bund Garden Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short “the MCOCA”). 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 5th October 2020, the employer of the First Informant was shot dead outside the Collector’s office, Pune by the Accused No. 4. It is alleged that there was a land dispute between the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.02.12 18:13:16 +0530 1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam deceased and Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and arising out of said land dispute, the deceased was murdered by way of a killing contract. It is alleged that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave a contract to Accused No. 3 to kill the deceased. Accused No. 3 allegedly hired the Applicant, a member of an organized crime syndicate, who in turn assigned the contract to Accused No.4. It is alleged that on the day of the incident, the Applicant was seen near the incident spot. There were call records between the Applicant, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 stating the whereabouts of the deceased. The Activa Scooter used in the crime belongs to the Applicant. 3. It is contention of the learned senior counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is behind bars for more than five years. There is no progress in the trial. The allegations against the Applicant are that there were call records between him and Accused Nos. 3 and 4. When the deceased left the Collector’s office, Accused No. 3 informed the Applicant and the Applicant informed Accused No. 4, and thereafter, the deceased was shot dead by Accused No. 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicant and Accused No. 4 reside in the same building. There were several calls between them, but mere exchange of calls does not suggest that the Applicant was involved in the conspiracy as stated in the charge- sheet. No document is produced on record to show that the Applicant was present near the incident spot. Learned counsel further submitted that 1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against whom strong motive is alleged, have been released on bail. Except the instant case, no other C.R is pending against Applicant with co-accused. To prove the provisions of MCOCA levelled against the Applicant, trial is required. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for the intervenor that the Applicant is a member of crime syndicate run by Accused No. 4 and he is one of the conspirators in murder of the deceased, as he was in constant touch with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and co-accused. The Activa Scooter used in commission of crime belongs to the Applicant. The call records of the day of the incident, before the murder of the deceased, show that there were calls between the Applicant and Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and co-accused. The CDR and CCTV footage produced on record shows that the Applicant was present near the incident spot. The Applicant has five antecedents. This Court had rejected the bail applications of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and in the said order, this Court has observed about the role of the Applicant. The Applicant was keeping watch on the incident. The statement of the witness Sanket Yadav supports the said fact, provisions of MCOCA are applied against the Applicant. Hence, requested to reject the application. Page 3 of 6 1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. 6. The allegations against the Applicant are mainly of conspiracy and contract to kill the deceased was given to him by the Accused No. 3, then the Applicant gave it to Accused No.4. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, the Applicant was in contact with Accused Nos. 3 and 4. It is alleged that the Activa scooter used in the said crime by Accused No. 4 belonged to the Applicant. The Applicant was present near the incident spot at the time of incident. In my view, the statement of First Informant and eye witnesses shows that the Accused No. 4 arrived on foot, fired at the deceased from a pistol and ran away. It does not show that Activa Scooter was used for commission of crime. The CDR locations provided on record of the Applicant does not indicate that he was near the incident spot. The Accused No. 1 and 2 against whom there are allegations of strong motive have been released on bail. The Accused No. 3 against whom there are allegations that he gave killing contract to the Applicant, and on day of the incident, he was in contact with the Applicant, has been released on bail. To prove the charges of conspiracy against the Applicant, evidence is required. The Applicant is behind bars for more than 5 years. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order: 1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam ORDER (i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 413 of 2020 registered with Bund Garden 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, prosecution witnesses or any person concerned with the case. Failure to comply with this condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly 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. Learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the intervenor wants to challenge this order and requested to stay the order for two weeks. As this Court has passed order on merit, hence, request is rejected. 1-BA-3485-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. 10. In view of disposal of Bail Application, Interim Application No.2405 of 2025 will not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)