― Advertisement ―

HomeSunil Babu Bhoir vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2026

Sunil Babu Bhoir vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Bombay High Court

Sunil Babu Bhoir vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:19107                                                             BA_2065_2025.DOC




                                                                                              Prasad
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2065 OF 2025

                    Sunil Bhoir                                              ...Applicant
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra                                     ...Respondent

                                               WITH
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4307 OF 2025
                                                 IN
                             CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2065 OF 2025
                    Jeetendra Ramakant Yadav                    ...Applicant
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent

                    Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for the Applicant.
                    Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent - State.
                    Mr. Datta Mane, for the Applicant in IA/4307/2025.
                    API - Ganesh Kekan, Naigaon Police Station, MBVV, present.


                                       CORAM:                   R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                       RESERVED ON:             17th APRIL, 2026.
                                       PRONOUNCED ON :          22nd APRIL, 2026.
                    PC:-

                    1.            By this application, the applicant seeks bail in
                    connection with C.R. No. I-155 of 2023 registered with Naigaon
                    Police Station, Palghar for the offences punishable u/s 307, 386,
                    324, 452, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 and 120(B) of
                    Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), Section 135 of the
                    Maharashtra Police Act,1951 and sections 4 & 25 of Arms Act,
                    1959 imposed and impleaded with sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4)
                    of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1989 (for
                    short "MCOCA").


                                                  Page 1 of 8
                                                  nd
                                                22 April, 2026.



                ::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                       ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                                BA_2065_2025.DOC




 2.              The records indicate that on June 20, 2023, an
 encounter occurred at the office of the informant, Mr. Jitendra
 Ramakant Yadav, involving a demand for ₹1 Crore related to
 land litigation and a claim of affiliation with the 'Gang of
 Sheth.' On the following day, June 21, 2023, at approximately
 17:30 hours, a group of individuals arrived at the same
 premises. During this incident, several four-wheeled vehicles
 were damaged, and physical injuries were caused to the
 informant's legs and a head injury to his servant, Mr. Bhuvad.
 Consequently, C.R. No. I-155/2023 was registered at Naigaon
 Police Station. The Applicant was subsequently arrested on
 June 23, 2023, and provisions of MCOCA were later applied to
 the case.

 3.               The investigation led to the recovery of a white
 moped from the scene of the offence and the seizure of wooden
 sticks     from      Accused   No.    4,   Rohit    Sontakke,         under       a
 memorandum panchnama dated June 26, 2023. Mobile phones
 were also seized from the applicants, however, the forensic
 laboratory report regarding these devices has remained pending
 for over one year. In terms of procedural compliance under
 MCOCA, the Competent Authority granted Approval under
 Section 23(1)(a) on August 10, 2023, followed by a sanction
 for prosecution under Section 23(2) by the Commissioner of
 Police, Mira Bhayander Vasai Virar, on September 19, 2023. The
 charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.

 4.            The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted
 that the entire identification process is a "farce" and a product
 of the investigating agency's imagination. It is pointed out that


                                  Page 2 of 8
                                  nd
                                22 April, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                        ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                                    BA_2065_2025.DOC




 while      the      FIR       names        the   applicants,    the      informant
 simultaneously admitted that the assailants were masked and
 unknown to him at the time of the incident. Furthermore, there
 is a glaring discrepancy between the FIR, which alleges ten
 attackers, and the CCTV footage of the incident, which depicts
 only 4 to 5 masked individuals. It is pointed out that in respect
 of incident dated 20th June, 2023 NC came to be lodged,
 wherein there is no allegation of demand of any money by way
 of extortion etc. It is thus his submission that false case is
 sought to be made out subsequently by Informant. It is thus
 contended that the Applicant was not present at the scene i.e.
 the second motion and as such there is no evidence to connect
 the Applicant with this crime. It is further submitted that the
 Applicant has no criminal history. According to him there is no
 likelihood of commencement and conclusion of trial in
 reasonable time. On these amongst other contentions he seeks
 bail.

 5.               The learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
 State opposed the application contending that the present case
 involves a serious offense of organized crime, wherein a ransom
 of ₹1 Crore was demanded by invoking the name of the "Gang
 of Sheth" to settle land disputes. It is submitted that the
 incident occurred in two stages; initially through a threat on
 June 20, 2023, followed by a violent assault on June 21, 2023,
 where approximately ten individuals entered the informant's
 premises with their faces masked. During this assault, four-
 wheeled vehicles were damaged, and the informant and his
 servant, Mr. Bhuvad, were physically assaulted, the latter



                                       Page 3 of 8
                                       nd
                                   22 April, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                            ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                              BA_2065_2025.DOC




 sustaining a head injury. He referred to statements of witnesses
 in order to seek involvement of Applicant in the crime.
 Reference is made to the statements of Ankush, Shivmsingh,
 Yogesh Kothari, Mhatre and confessional statement of co-
 accused Pratik Joshi in order to argue that there is enough
 material on record to indicate the involvement of Applicant in
 this case. According to him, given the gravity of the attempt to
 murder and extortion, the prosecution maintains that the
 invocation of Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC, alongside the
 special provisions of the MCOCA, is fully justified.

 6.               Perusal of the record indicates that on the basis of
 this statement of Informant, offence came to be registered
 against the Applicant and the co-accused. The FIR indicates that
 on 19th June, 2023 a phone call was received by the Informant
 in connection with some transaction about land. On 20 th June,
 2023, three co-accused came to the office of the Informant and
 threatened him. In this regard, non-cognizable report was
 lodged by the Informant to the concerned police station. In the
 said report there is no allegation made by the Informant with
 regard to threats given by those persons in respect of any
 transaction of land. Thereafter, on 21 st June, 2023 another
 incident occurred, in which the persons named in the FIR came
 to the office of the Informant and caused assault on the
 Informant and witnesses. They demanded Rs.2 crores from the
 Informant. Damage was caused to the vehicles as well as the
 property.

 7.               Insofar as the present Applicant is concerned, in the
 FIR there is no reference with regard to presence of the


                                  Page 4 of 8
                                  nd
                                22 April, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                      ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                             BA_2065_2025.DOC




 Applicant at the time of occurrence of both the incidents. In
 order to attribute the said presence, the prosecution relies upon
 the statements of Ankush, Shivamsing and Harish Patil, who
 claim presence of the Applicant on 20 th June, 2023. Similarly,
 reference is made to the confessional statement of the co-
 accused Pratik Joshi, recorded before the authority under the
 MCOC Act. Prima facie perusal of the record does not indicate
 the presence of the Applicant at the spot on 21 st June, 2023, in
 which the assault came to be caused on the Informant and
 witnesses so also damage is caused to the property.

 8.               The prosecution seeks to place reliance on the
 statement of Mhatre who said to have interest in the land which
 is purchased by the Informant from its erstwhile owner.
 Referring to the said statement it is sought to be argued that it
 is the present Applicant who has introduced him to the co-
 accused for the purpose of recovery of the money from the
 Informant.

 9.               Now question arises as to whether even accepting
 the case of these witnesses to be true, the Applicant can be said
 to be the member of the gang of co-accused in order to invoke
 provisions of MCOC Act against him. As recorded earlier,
 involvement of the Applicant is not seen in the crime or the
 incident which took place on 21st June, 2023. As far as the
 presence of the Applicant at the spot on 20 th June, 2023 is
 concerned, there is no specific evidence on record to indicate
 the presence of the Applicant and his participation in the crime
 in question. The statement of co-accused Pratik only states
 about Applicant accompanying the co-accused in their vehicle,


                                 Page 5 of 8
                                 nd
                               22 April, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                     ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                                  BA_2065_2025.DOC




 but states nothing further, even presence of applicant at spot. It
 would not be sufficient for the prosecution to have such
 evidence in order to connect the Applicant with the incident in
 question.

 10.              This is more so in view of the fact that at the first
 instance, NCR was reported to the concerned police station with
 regard to the incident occurred on 20th June, 2023. In the said
 NCR, reference is made about presence of three persons only. It
 is by way of recording subsequent statement the involvement of
 the Applicant and other accused is sought in the crime. Even if
 it is accepted for the sake argument that initially the Informant
 did not lodge the report of the incident as it occurred, it is a
 matter of fact that there is a discrepancy in the report in respect
 of the persons involved in the first incident.

 11.              The      case   of    prosecution    that     Applicant         has
 approached Harishchandra Mhatre for helping him to recover
 money by itself would not make him part of the gang/crime
 syndicate. This observation is inevitable in view of the fact that,
 there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the co-
 accused approached to the Informant in connection with the
 said land. There is nothing on record to hold that the land
 which was sought to be referred by the Mhatre was the matter
 of dispute between the parties. There are no statements
 indicating any amount being sought by accused for and on
 behalf of Mhatre.

 12.              Admittedly, the Applicant has no criminal history
 and this is the first crime registered against him. In order to



                                       Page 6 of 8
                                       nd
                                   22 April, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026                          ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::
                                                                 BA_2065_2025.DOC




 apply provisions of MCOC Act, prima facie there must be
 evidence to indicate that the Applicant is a member of the
 organized crime syndicate and has participated in the crime in
 question.        On      both   counts,    there    is    no      prima       facie
 satisfactory/sufficient         evidence    on     record.     In     fact,     the
 statements recorded during the course of investigation i.e.
 statement of 20th June, 2023 and subsequent statement are
 inconsistent with regard to the role of the present Applicant. It
 is also necessary to take note of the fact that the First Informant
 has given details and names of all persons who participated in
 the said assault on 21st June, 2023. He does not give specific
 name of Applicant to be one of the persons at the time of
 incident on 20th June, 2023.

 13.              In such circumstances, when there is no clear cut
 evidence in order to show that Applicant is the member of the
 organized crime syndicate, and in view of the fact that he has
 no criminal history, he is entitled to bail. The Applicant is in jail
 since 2023. In view of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, this
 Court has no reason to believe that the Applicant has
 committed the offence and considering his past clean record,
 there is no likelihood that he would commit the offence if
 enlarged on bail. Hence, following order.

                                    ORDER

i) The Bail Application stands allowed.

ii) In connection with C.R. No. I-155 of 2023 registered with
Naigaon Police Station, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on

SPONSORED

Page 7 of 8
nd
22 April, 2026.

::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::

BA_2065_2025.DOC

furnishing PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

iii) The Applicant to attend proceedings before the Trial Court
unless exempted.

iv) The Applicant is directed to attend the concerned police
station as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.

14. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned
Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{

Page 8 of 8
nd
22 April, 2026.

::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 21:54:18 :::



Source link