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
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 :::

