1
MHCC020030282024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2024
1. Rahul Vikas Katalkar
2. Ganesh Shahaji Khandagale
… Applicants/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of R.C.F.. Police Station vide
C.R. No. 684/2023)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr. Atar L.H., Ld. Advocate for Applicants/accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by Applicants/accused
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
releasing
them
on
regular
bail
in
connection
with
C.R.

No.684/2023 registered with R.C.F. police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 341, 109 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and
Sections 37 (1)(A), 135, 142 of Maharashtra Police Act.
2.

The applicants/accused submitted that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The police
2
have filed charge-sheet. Accused No.3 is enlarged on bail. Further
custody of applicants/accused is not required. No purpose will be
served by keeping applicants behind bar. The applicants/accused
are ready to abide by any terms and condition imposed by the
court. Hence, applicants/accused prayed for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. 684/2023 registered with R.C.F. police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.2 and
resisted the application on the ground that applicants/accused are
habitual offenders. If bail is granted to applicants/accused, then
they will again commit similar type of offence. There is possibility
of tampering of the prosecution evidence. Lastly, investigating
officer prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard
Applicants/accused
Ld.
and
Adv.

Mr.

Atar
L.H.

for
the
Ld.

APP
O.S.

Maraskolhe
for
Respondent/State.
5.

On the basis of report lodged by informant namely
Aakash Babasaheb Londhe, RCF police station registered C.R.
No.684/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 341,
109 r/w 34 of I.P.C. r/w Sections 37(1)(A), 135, 142 of
Maharashtra Police Act. It is alleged in FIR that on 20/11/2023 at
about 00.00 hours, informant was returning back to his house on
his motor bike. At that time all the accused persons chased the
informant and they stopped the motor bike of the informant at
Sahyadri Nagar, Vashinaka, Chembur. Accused Rahul Katalkar and
accused Dadya Anand Khandagle caught hold the informant and
accused Ganesh Khandagale abused the informant and gave threat
3
to kill him. He also inflicted blow by means of sharp edged weapon
on the head of the informant and attempted to kill him. The
accused Rahul and accused Dadya also assaulted the informant by
fist blows. Hence, informant lodged the report against the accused
at RCF police station.
6.

It is to be noted that names of both applicants/accused
are mentioned in the F.I.R. In FIR the only allegation levelled
against applicant/accused No.1 Rahul Katalkar that he caught hold
and assaulted to the informant by fist blows. There are no
allegation against applicant/accused No.1 that he assaulted to the
informant by deadly weapon. There are no allegation against
applicant/accused No.1 that he attempted to kill the informant. In
my view the role of applicant/accused No.1 is to the extent of
holding and assaulting informant by fist blows. He has not used any
weapon. As charge-sheet has been filed against accused persons, no
purpose will be served by keeping applicant/accused No.1 behind
bar. Considering the role of applicant/accused No.1 in the crime I
am of the view that applicant/accused No.1 is entitled to be
released on regular bail.
7.

So far as applicant/accused No.2 Ganesh Khandagale is
concerned, his name is mentioned in F.I.R. Applicant/accused No.2
Ganesh Khandagale inflicted blow by sharp edged weapon i.e.
sickle on the head of the informant and attempted to kill him. He
also assaulted informant by fist blows. Thus, all the allegations of
attempt to commit murder of informant is against principal
applicant/accused No.2 Ganesh Khandagale. The sharp edged
weapon i.e. sickle is recovered at the instance of applicant/accused
4
No.2 Ganesh Khandagale. Witnesses namely Salim Shaikh, Laxman
Kamble, Ratnamala Londhe have stated that applicant/accused
No.2 Ganesh Khandagale inflicted blow by sharp weapon to the
complainant and caused injury. Moreover, the informant in his
statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. have also stated that
applicant/accused No.2 abused to him and with the intention to
commit his murder, inflicted blow by sharp weapon on head of
informant. Thus prima facie the charge-sheet as well as statement
of witnesses shows the involvement of applicant/accused No.2
Ganesh Khandagale in the said crime. Moreover, the applicant is
having criminal antecedents. If bail is granted to him then he will
again commit similar type of offence. Therefore, applicant/accused
No.2 is not entitled for grant of regular bail.
8.

Considering the nature of offence and role played by
applicant/accused No.2 in the crime, I am of the view that
applicant/accused No.2 Ganesh Khandagale is not entitled for grant
of regular bail. However, applicant/accused No.1 Rahul Katalkar is
entitled for regular bail. Hence, application needs to be partly
allowed. Therefore, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No. 452 of 2024 filed by
Applicants/accused persons is partly allowed.

2.

Criminal Bail Application No. 452 of 2024 in respect of
Applicants/accused No.2 Ganesh Shahaji Khandagale stands
rejected.

3.

Applicants/accused No.1 Rahul Vikas Katalkar resident of
5
Vashinaka, Chembur, Mumbai-74 be released on regular bail
on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one or
more sureties in like amount in connection with C.R.
No.684/2023 registered with R.C.F. Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 341, 109 r/w 34 of
I.P.C. and section
37 (1)(A), 135, 142 of M.P. Act
on following conditions :(a) Applicants/accused No.1 is directed to attend all the
dates of the case before the Court.
(b) Applicants/accused No.1 and their surety shall provide
their respective residential address, mobile number and email
address, if any to investigation officer. Applicants/accused
No.1 shall intimate any such change in address or telephone
number and Email ID forthwith.
(c) Applicants/accused No.1 should not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should
not tamper with the evidence and prosecution witnesses.
(d)
Applicants/accused No.1 shall not leave India without
prior permission of Ld. Sessions Court.
(e)
Breach of any conditions by Applicants/accused No.1,
shall result in cancellation of bail.
4.

Provisional cash bail is allowed to the accused no.1 for a
6
period of four weeks from the date of release.
5.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

6.

Criminal Bail Application No. 452 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 29.02.2024
Dictated on
: 29/02/2024
Transcribed on : 29/02/2024
HHJ signed on : 01/03/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
01/03/2024 5.15 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 29/02/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 01/03/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 01/03/2024
on