1
MHCC020063322024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 997 OF 2024
Siddhant Promod Loute
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Deonar Police Station vide
C.R. No. 162/2024)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr. M.S. Shaikh, Ld. Advocate for applicant/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 : 30TH APRIL, 2024.
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicant/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.162/2024 registered
with Deonar police station for the offence punishable under Sections
307, 385, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. and 37(1) (A), 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act.

2
2.

Applicant/accused submitted that he is innocent and
has not committed any crime. Applicant/accused submitted that he
has been falsely implicated in this crime. He has not directly in the
present crime. No purpose will be served by keeping applicant
behind bar. The applicant is ready to abide by any terms and
conditions imposed by the court. Hence, applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R. 162/2024
registered with Deonar. police station.
3.

The investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.2 and
resisted the application on the ground that investigation is at initial
stage. Applicant/accused has committed serious offence in collusion
with other accused persons. If bail is granted to applicant/accused
he will commit similar type of offence and destroy evidence of
prosecution. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail
application.
4.

Heard
Ld.

Adv.

Mr.

applicant/accused
and
Ld.

APP
M.S.
O.S.

Shaikh
for
the
Maraskolhe
for
Respondent/State. I have also heard investigating officer Rahil
Mokate attached to Deonar police station.
5.

Perused the contents of application and say filed by the
investigating officer. By this application the applicant/accused
prayed for grant of regular bail. I have gone through the F.I.R. In
F.I.R. the name of applicant is mentioned as accused No.2. There
are specific allegation against applicant/accused that he assaulted
witness Sachin by fist blows and kick blows. There are also
allegation that applicant/accused was armed with knife and with
3
intention to kill the informant, he inflicted blow on the back of
informant. The applicant/accused inflicted blow to witness Sachin
on his neck. Thus the role of applicant/accused is specifically
mentioned in F.I.R. Applicant/accused was armed with sharp
weapon i.e. knife. Deadly weapon is used by applicant/accused for
inflicting blow to the informant as well as witness. The role of
applicant/accused
is
specifically
mentioned
in
F.I.R.

Applicant/accused has played active role in committing the crime.
There are two injured witnesses in the crime. Offence is serious in
nature. Investigation is in progress. Let investigation be completed.
If bail is granted to applicant/accused then work of investigation
will be hampered. Therefore, it is not proper to enlarge
applicant/accused on bail. Hence, application needs to be rejected.
Therefore, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1. Criminal Bail Application No.997 of 2024 stands rejected.
2. Order accordingly.

Digitally signed
by ATUL
SHANKARRAO
ATUL
SHANKARRAO SALGAR
SALGAR
Date:
2024.05.07
11:13:34 +0530
Date : 30.04.2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
Dictated on
: 30.04.2024
Transcribed on : 06.05.2024
Signed on
: 06.05.2024
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
07.05.2024
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
12.05 p.m.

Prajwala V. Phodkar
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 30.04.2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 06.05.2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 07.05.2024
on