H.C.SHIV 915.BA1196.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2026 Suresh @ Suraj Shahji Jagtap …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Ravi Dwivedi with Sainath Baji, Aishwarya Pandi and Sakshi Singh for the Applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Dipali Pawase, PSI, RCF police station present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.r. No.438 of 2024, registered with R.C.F. police station, Mumbai for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) (a), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on the report dated 22nd July, 2024 filed by the first informant. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 21st July 2024, about 9.30 to 10.00 pm, near the house of the informant, the applicant along with co-accused persons assaulted the deceased, namely, Siddharth Kamble with fist and kick blows. During the said assault, all of sudden accused-Sitaram Jagtap (A1) removed knife and stabbed the deceased on various parts of body, as a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and accused persons including the applicant came to HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2026.09.18 20:40:46 +0300 H.C.SHIV 915.BA1196.26.DOC be arrested. The completion of the investigation led to filing of the charge-sheet. The trial Court refused to release the applicant on bail. Hence, this application. 4. Mr.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, no weapon was used by the applicant in the incident. The role attributed to co-accused Rupesh Kamble, Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is identical. Said co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail applying the principle of parity. 5. In reply, Mr.Chate, learned APP submitted that although the role attributed to the applicant and said co-accused Rupesh Kamble, Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is similar to same extent, the applicant had instigated the co-accused persons to assault the informant. Additionally, the learned APP submitted that, recently, FIR No.211 of 2025 came to be registered against the associates of the accused persons for threatening the complainant that because of him, the accused in this crime are in jail. Thus, there is a possibility that the applicant may influence upon the witnesses and dissuade them from testifying against them. He, therefore, urged to reject the application. 6. I have considered the submissions. The text of the Report indicates that the role attributed to the applicant, Rupesh Kamble, Sagar Kamble, Sudhakar Ausarmal and Rupesh Vairale is similar to some extent. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Chate, learned APP, the applicant unnecessarily instigated the co-accused persons to assault the informant. As a result, co-accused Sudhakar Ausarmal caught hold of the informant from behind, while Rupesh Kamble assaulted him with fist blows on his stomach. Thereafter, Sagar Kamble sat on his person and gave him fist blows. When the H.C.SHIV 915.BA1196.26.DOC deceased tried to intervene, at that juncture, A1 stabbed him with knife. Thus, prima facie it appears that since there was instigation by the applicant, therefore, the assault escalated to the murder. These circumstances distinguishes the case against the applicant from his co-accused. 7. The applicant had three criminal antecedents as under :- Sr. No. Crime No. Police Station Sections 1 Cr. No. 74/2010 RCF police station, Mumbai 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC 2 Cr. No. 247/2013 ….’’…. 326, 323, 504, 506 (ii) r/w 34 of IPC 3 Cr. No. 35/2010 ….’’…. 324,323,427,504 r/w 34 of IPC 8. Mr.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant tendered the copies of judgments in the said cases, thereby, the applicant has been acquitted in the said cases. However, it is necessary to note that in Serial No.1, the informant was not traceable and, two witnesses did not support the prosecution on the point of assault to the informant and him sustaining injury. In Serial No.2 also, the witnesses did not support the prosecution, notwithstanding the case was involving the charge of a serious offence of Section 326 IPC. In fact, the judgment indicate that, initially, the witness supported the prosecution, but, in the cross-examination gave such admissions as if she was hostile to the prosecution. It was also because, the offence was settled outside the Court. In Serial No.3 also, the complainant as well as the injured witness did not depose against the applicant as the matter was compromised. Thus it is clear that the acquittals were not on merit. In all the three cases, A1 was also the co-accused. These circumstances prima facie indicate that since there was influence of the applicant and A1 over the witnesses in the said old H.C.SHIV 915.BA1196.26.DOC cases, therefore, the injured and other material witnesses did not support the prosecution. In the case in hand also the Report clearly mentions that A1 and the applicant have their influence in Mukund Nagar area where the informant and other witnesses have been residing. Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the applicant is released on bail in this case, there is every possibility that he will exercise strong influence over the witnesses and compel them not to appear before the trial Court and, if appeared, then not to depose in favour of the prosecution . 9. In the wake of above, there is no merit in the application. As a result, the application is liable to be rejected and, is rejected, accordingly. 10. It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)