20.BA.3593.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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. ] 4 of 4 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.23 20:38:31 +0530