MANOJ 57-BA-2296-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2296 OF 2026 Kuldeep @ Bhola Mukesh Kajaniya …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w Adv. Jinay Jain, for the Applicant. Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI – S. Palkar, Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP tendered the Report dated 30th July, 2026 received from Police Inspector (Crimes), Ulhasnagar Police Station. It is taken on record and marked “X”. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 3. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an FIR bearing Cr.No.313 of 2023, registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under under Sections 302, 307, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 4. The prosecution case is that, the informant used to do labour work of cleaning cattle shed of co-accused Nitin Kajaniya and the applicant. Since the informant had left that work, therefore, said both accused developed grudge against the informant. As a result, all the accused including a juvenile boy in conflict with law formed an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly, they assaulted WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.02 18:19:42 +0530 MANOJ 57-BA-2296-2026.DOC the informant on 22nd May, 2023, at about 4:00 a.m., while the informant and his friend Sunil Nikam were slept at the house of one Vicky. During the incident, the co-accused Nitin, Chintu Bhagwane @ Chindu and the juvenile body assaulted Sunil Nikam by means of iron rod and wooden sticks and the remaining accused including the applicant assaulted him with fists and kicks. Consequently, Sunil Nikam suffered grievous injury. After 8 days Sunil Nikam succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, aforesaid crime was registered and the accused were arrested. On completion of investigation police submitted the charge-sheet. 5. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court for bail by filing Bail Application No.3545 of 2024. Said Application was rejected on merits vide Order dated 25th June, 2025. The applicant assailed that Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11871 of 2025. However, said Appeal was withdrawn. 6. Ms. Khan, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is pressing this Application for bail only on the ground of incarceration. She submitted that the applicant was arrested on 23rd May 2023. Till the date, he is incarcerated for more than 3 years and 4 months. Only charge is framed in the case and the trial has not advanced thereafter. Therefore, she urged to release the applicant on bail. 7. In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP submitted that the applicant has eleven criminal antecedents. Therefore and having regard to the manner in which the alleged offence is committed, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Page 2 of 3 MANOJ 57-BA-2296-2026.DOC 8. I have considered these submissions. The report submitted by the learned APP states that, excluding this case the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents. Out of it, two are bodily offences. One is of 2017, under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of the IPC and another is of 2020, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Record indicates that the informant was assaulted at 4:00 a.m. when he and the deceased were slept and not in a position to escape. The deceased was assaulted only because he had tried to rescue the informant. These circumstance indicate that the applicant has no regard for law nor its fear. He has tendency to misuse the bail liberty and commit bodily offences and create threat in the mind of general public. If the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence. 9. In the wake of above, the applicant is not entitled for bail. As a result, the application fails and liable to be rejected. Application is rejected, accordingly. 10. It is clarified that the observation made in the present Order and rejection of the prayer for the bail will not be treated as findings on the merit of the case. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)