Krushna Chhagan Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9132 Bom

Bombay High Court

Krushna Chhagan Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 December, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:36961


                                               *1*                      923apeal761o25


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2025
                                KRUSHNA CHHAGAN GAIKWAD
                                             VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 ...
                Shri Patil Jitendra V., Advocate for the Appellant.
                Shri V.M. Lomte, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
                Shri Jadhav Yogesh Arun, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                 ...


                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

DATE : 19 December 2025

P. C. :-

1. By this appeal filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the

BNSS') r/w Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short,

'the Atrocities Act'), the appellant/accused No.10 seeks Regular

Bail in connection with the FIR bearing Crime No.485 of 2022

dated 14.11.2022 registered with the Chalisgaon Police Station,

District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 307,

324, 143, 144, 147, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short, 'the IPC'), under Sections 37(1) and 37(3) of the *2* 923apeal761o25

Maharashtra Police Act, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of

the Atrocities Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short,

'the MCOC Act').

2. The present respondent No.3 (Ankit Mahendra

More) is the son of the original deceased informant (Mahendra

Bhagwat More).

3. The prosecution story is as under:-

(a) The deceased informant Mahendra lodged the report

and on the basis of his report, Crime No.485/2022 was registered

on 14.11.2022. It is stated in the report that in the month of

October 2022, he had sent his sons Ankit and Aniket to Nashik to

attend educational classes and they were residing in hotel at

Uttam Nagar, Nashik.

(b) On 15.10.2022, the informant's son Ankit informed

on mobile phone that accused Shyam @ Syam Chavan R/o.

Hirapur Tal.Chalisgaon was giving threat to him on mobile

phone. Therefore, the informant's son Ankit lodged the report at

Ambad Police Station, Nashik, upon which, non-cognizable *3* 923apeal761o25

offence bearing No.3482/2022 was registered. However, the

informant called Ankit at Chalisgaon as he felt danger to the life

of Ankit. On that day, the police from Chalisgaon Rural Police

Station, District Jalgaon, called the informant and his son Ankit

as accused Shyam @ Syam Chavan had been to said police

station to lodge report. Therefore, they went to the Chalisgaon

Police Station with the informant's friend Tulshiram Andhore, at

that time the accused Shyam @ Syam Chavan was informing the

police about abused given by the informant's son Ankit.

Thereupon, the informant told police about lodging report at

Ambad Police Station. It is further alleged that, accused Shyam

@ Syam Chavan and one Santa Pahalwan, Ramesh Nikam,

Uddesh Shinde, Baba Bhosale, Anis Shaikh, Sachin Gaikwad,

Jayesh Patil and unknown 20-30 persons abused the informant.

The informant had not lodged any report about said incident.

(c) It is further stated that, subsequently Ankit informed

the informant that Ankit's friend Harshal Rathod obtained

Rs.50,000/- on interest from Sumit Bhosale with the help of

Rohit Gavali. As amount was not paid within time, Sumit

Bhosale and Santa Pahelwan beat Rohit Gavali at Hifi Hotel, *4* 923apeal761o25

Chalisgaon. It is also stated that, the accused persons, namely,

Amol Gaikwad, Sachin Gaikwad, Krushna Gaikwad (present

appellant), Shyam @ Syam Chavan and Uddesh Shinde are

working as recovery agents of Sumit Bhosale and Santa

Pahelwan. Harshal Rathod had repaid the amount on 05.10.2022,

but the accused persons were harassing Harshal for the demand

of excess amount. Therefore, the informant's son met Sumit

Bhosale and Santa Pahelwan and assured that, he will pay the

amount on behalf of Harshal Rathod but as he went to Nashik he

could not repay the money. Therefore, the accused Shyam @

Syam Chavan was abusing and threatening the informant on

mobile phone.

(d) On 13.11.2022 at about 2.30 p.m., the informant's

son Ankit went to purchase cake in shop near Central Bank on

Station Road with his friends Harshal Rathod and Pruthviraj

Sonawane on the occasion of birth of the informant. At about

3.00 p.m., another son of the informant Sanket informed on

mobile phone that some boys assaulted Ankit in front of the

Central Bank near college gate by means of chopper and Ankit

has sustained grievous injury and they were taking him to Deore *5* 923apeal761o25

Hospital. Thereupon, the informant immediately went to Deore

hospital where he saw his son Ankit was under treatment. The

informant saw that Ankit had sustained several severe injuries by

means of chopper. At that time, Ankit informed that, when he

was in front of Central Bank at about 2.30 p.m. accused Shyam

@ Syam Chavan, Uddesh Shinde, Amol Gaikwad, Krushna

Gaikwad (present appellant), Yogesh Panchal and other 3-4

persons rushed towards them having chopper, wooden stick,

wooden planks with spoke in their hands and started beating

them. Out of them, the accused Sachin Gaikwad assaulted Ankit

by means of chopper on his right leg and thigh, Krushna

Gaikwad (appellant) assaulted him by means of chopper on his

right calf and the accused Yogesh Panchal assaulted on the

bottom of legs by means of chopper. Accused Jayesh Patil,

Uddesh Shinde, Krushna Gaikwad (appellant), Shyam @ Syam

Chavan, Vikky Pawali assaulted with wooden stick and wooden

planks on his head, back, stomach and assaulted Harshal on his

back and neck. On the basis of these allegations, the said report

came to be lodged.

4. After registration of the FIR on 14.11.2022, the *6* 923apeal761o25

appellant came to be arrested on 19.01.2023 and since then he is

behind bars. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet

is filed and the case is registered as Special (MCOCA ATRO)

Case No.131/2023.

5. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, has

erroneously rejected the bail application vide order dated

14.11.2024. According to him, the present appellant has been

falsely implicated on suspicion and the prosecution has not

established the fact that the appellant is a member of organized

syndicate. The learned advocate submitted that there is no legal

bar to release the appellant on bail under section 21(4) MCOCA

Act. According to him, the complaint is lodged due to political

rivalry. The injuries caused to injured are simple in nature, there

is no danger to the life of the injured and he was discharged

from the hospital. The learned advocate submitted that Cr.R.

Nos.450/2021 and 174/2020 registered against the appellant are

in his personal capacity and not as organized crime.

6. The learned advocate for the appellant further

submitted that there are total 11 accused persons and out of them, *7* 923apeal761o25

nine accused persons have already been granted bail. The trial is

pending since the year 2022 and the appellant is languishing in

jail since 19.01.2023. The role attributed to the appellant is

similar to that of other accused persons, who have been granted

bail and, therefore, the learned advocate claims parity as per

other accused persons. Since the charge sheet is filed, physical

custody of the appellant is not required. If he is released on bail,

the appellant will not abscond and will abide by the conditions

imposed by this Court. The learned advocate, therefore, prayed

for grant of regular bail. In support of his submissions, he has

relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and others,

(2024) 9 SCC 813 and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3

SCC 713.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP has strongly

opposed the appeal by submitting that many accused in the crime

were operating as gang members and many accused are

absconding. Some of the accused, which are part of the syndicate

have committed murder of the informant Mahendra Bhagwan

More on 07.02.2024 by hatching a conspiracy. It is specifically *8* 923apeal761o25

pointed out that first two bail applications of the appellant were

rejected by the Trial Court. According to him, the appellant

attempted to commit murder of the injured and he is habitual

offender. The appellant also assaulted witness Harshal Rathod on

his head by means of wooden log. Therefore, Sessions Case

No.111/2020 and Special Case No.271/2022 are pending against

the appellant. The learned APP submitted that the appellant was

granted bail in Special Case No.271/2022 and after release, he

committed similar types of offences and violated the terms and

conditions of the bail order which shows that, the appellant is not

law abiding person. The appellant also threatened the witness

Rohit Gawali, hence Ν.C.NO.1323/2022 was registered against

him. Offence is serious in nature, possibility of commission of

similar offence by the appellant cannot be ruled out. Therefore,

the present appeal be rejected.

8. I have also heard the learned advocate for

respondent No.3/ son of the informant, who adopted the

submissions of the learned APP and further submitted that in

order to grant bail, this Court is required to consider the

provisions of Section 21(4) of the Act. According to him, there is *9* 923apeal761o25

specific bar as regards releasing the accused persons on bail

unless two conditions are satisfied. One test is that this Court has

to give finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accused is not guilty of such offences under the MCOC

Act and second is that, the accused is not likely to commit any

offence while on bail. However, in this case, several offences

committed by the appellant would show that he is having no

regard for law and order of the society and it cannot be held that

he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The learned

advocate has pointed out the offences registered against the

appellant and the members of his gang. The learned advocate,

therefore, prayed for rejection of this appeal.

9. In this case, the offences alleged pertain to the

special statute enacted for the special purpose of prevention and

control of criminal activities by organized gangs so as to tackle

the black money generated from contract killings, extortion, drug

trafficking, and kidnapping. Therefore, parameters for grant of

bail in such offences are different. As such, the parties are

extensively heard even at the stage of grant of bail pending trial.

10. After perusal of the record, it is evident that after *10* 923apeal761o25

grant of bail to some of the accused persons of the syndicate,

they have committed murder of the informant on 07.02.2024.

Thus, the accused persons, who were released on bail, have

committed another heinous crime. Moreover, in this case, the

provisions of the MCOC Act are invoked, therefore, while

considering the bail application, this Court is required to see that

the twin test as contemplated under Section 21(4) is satisfied or

not.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra

vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561, observed

that having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4)

of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the

matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the

material collected against the accused during the investigation

may not justify the judgment of conviction. So also, the Court is

required to record the finding as to the possibility of his

committing a crime after grant of bail.

12. In this case, the statements of eyewitnesses and

recoveries effected at the instance of the appellant and other

accused persons are itself sufficient to prima facie observe that *11* 923apeal761o25

there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is

not guilty. Therefore, answer to the first condition as regards

whether, the present appellant has prima facie not committed the

offence or he is prima facie not guilty of the said crime, is in

negative. As regards answer to the second condition, whether, the

appellant would commit similar offence if released on bail, is

also in negative. Previous criminal antecedents against the

present appellant and the fact that the other accused of his gang

after released on bail, have committed another heinous crime of

murder, would itself go to show that there is every likelihood that

if the appellant is released on bail, he will commit another

offence. As such, the appellant has failed to satisfy the twin test

as prescribed under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 14 SCC 422, has observed that

while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind some

important aspects such as (a) not only the nature of the

accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation

entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the

accusations; (b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being *12* 923apeal761o25

tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the

complainant; (c) there ought to be prima facie satisfaction of the

court in support of the charge; (d) nature and gravity of the

accusation; (e) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

released on bail; (f) character, behaviour, means, position and

standing of the accused; (g) likelihood of the offence being

repeated; and (h) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of

bail.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor

Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, observed that in cases

involving organised crime, the interest of the community

outweighs individual liberty at the stage of bail. The Maharashtra

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 is a special statute enacted

to combat organised crime, which by its very nature poses a

grave threat to public order and the administration of justice. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v.

State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, and State of

Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561,

has categorically held that the restrictions imposed under Section

21(4) of the Act are in addition to the limitations under Section *13* 923apeal761o25

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The satisfaction

contemplated under Section 21(4) is something more than a

prima facie view and requires the Court to record a finding based

on reasonable grounds. Recently, in Jayshree Kanabar v. State of

Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCC 797, the Supreme Court reiterated

that liberal considerations applicable in ordinary criminal cases

cannot be extended to prosecutions under MCOCA. Therefore,

while dealing with bail under the Act, the Court is statutorily

bound to apply a stricter and cautious approach, keeping in view

the object of the legislation and the societal interest involved.

15. The reliance placed by the learned advocate for the

appellant on the judgments in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State

of Maharashtra and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb is misplaced.

In both the said decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

dealing with cases where there was prolonged incarceration and

absence of sufficient material. In the present case, not only the

material collected by the prosecution discloses the active role of

the appellant in the organised crime syndicate, but subsequent

events, including commission of heinous offence by co-accused

after release on bail, clearly demonstrate the continuing threat *14* 923apeal761o25

posed by the syndicate.

16. In view of the above discussion, the appellant is not

entitled to be released on bail. The Criminal Appeal fails and it is

dismissed.

kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )