[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Gauri Nakke (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Kapil ... on 15 April, 2026
1 18 BA 249.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 249/2026
(Santosh S/o Gauri Nakke Vs. State of Maharashtra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. B. Barve, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. P. C. Bawankule, APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 15/04/2026.
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular
bail in connection with Crime No.44/2024 registered with
Police Station Kapil Nagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 203, 302, 120-B, 34, 201 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999
("MCOCA"), Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and
Sections 3(2)(v)(va) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on
02/02/2024 at about 11:30 p.m., the informant received a
phone call from her mother, informing her that her
husband (the deceased) has been assaulted with a knife
2 18 BA 249.26
and was taken to Mayo Hospital for treatment. The
informant immediately rushed to the hospital and found
her husband lying on a stretcher with three injuries on his
chest. After examination, the doctor declared him dead.
The informant inquired with Ankit @ Ganja Jaynag
Chauhan, who was working with the deceased who stated
that co-accused Chhota Dattu @ Rahul Ramesh Ramteke
demanded money from the deceased for liquor
consumption. The deceased refused, following which
Chhota Dattu assaulted him with a knife. Friends of the
deceased tried to intervene, but the deceased collapsed due
to the assault. Based on the said report, a first information
report was registered.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant is not the main assailant. There is nothing on
record to show that the applicant is involved in the crime.
In the first information report the name of the applicant
does not appear, however it transpired during investigation
that the applicant has hatched conspiracy to eliminate
deceased Mangesh. Merely on the basis of Call Detail
Records between the applicant and the other, that by itself
is not sufficient to connect the applicant with crime. He
3 18 BA 249.26
further submits that the statement wherein the applicant
was implicated recorded almost after one month of
incident, wherein it is alleged that at Chinese Thela, the
conspiracy was hatched, wherein the present applicant
instigated the main assailant Rahul @ Chota Dattya to
commit the murder of deceased Mangesh as the deceased
was having the business of gambling and the applicant and
his brother also intends to do the same business in that
area. Apart from this, there are no other allegations of
actual participation in the offence of murder, therefore he
submit that the applicant be released on bail considering
the nature of allegations against the applicant.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently
opposes the application and submits that the applicant
hatched the conspiracy to eliminate deceased Mangesh as
the applicant and his brother Satish Gauri Nakke were
having strong motive to commit the murder. All the
accused persons hatched the conspiracy in order to
eliminate the deceased. She submits that accused is also
involved in the gambling business, therefore he had
expressed his desire to alongside the deceased to which the
deceased denied, therefore the gang leader Satish
4 18 BA 249.26
hatched the conspiracy and committed murder of deceased
Mangesh. She invited my attention to the Call Detail
Records, wherein between the period from 21:45 hrs to
23:15 hrs., there were continuous calls between the main
assailant and the present applicant as well as the gang
leader Satish. She further invited my attention to the
statement of one witness namely Mohammad who was
doing the business of Chinese food item on whose Thela,
the present applicant came between 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm
and at that time, other co accused persons including Rahul
were present. She further submits that the application for
bail in respect of gang leader was rejected by this Court by
a detailed order and the same was confirmed by the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No(s) 50955 of 2025, therefore she submits that the
applicant does not deserve to be granted bail as on the
same material this Court has passed a detailed order
thereby rejecting the bail application. There are serious
offences registered against the applicant which are eight in
number including this offence, therefore she submits that
considering criminal history and background of the
applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be granted
5 18 BA 249.26
bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. I have
seen the first information report and other material. It
appears from the record that in the first information report
only the name of the main accused is mentioned and
during investigation, it transpired that even the present
applicant is involved in the crime as they have hatched the
conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Admittedly, in the
present crime the provisions of MCOCA are invoked by the
Investigating Agency. It further appears from the papers of
investigation and specifically from the statement of one of
the witness namely Mohammad that on the day of incident
i.e. on 02/02/2024 between 08:30 pm to 09:00 pm, the
present applicant came at the Chinese Thela, where main
assailant Rahul and other accused persons were present.
They hatched the conspiracy and present applicant asked
Rahul to eliminate Mangesh and he will get him released
from the Court of Law. This statement specifically shows
involvement of the present applicant. It is further to be
noted that there are several calls between the applicant,
main assailant Rahul and Satish during the period from
21:45 hrs. to 23:15 hrs on the day of incident. The
6 18 BA 249.26
incident took place on the same day at about 11:00 pm
While considering the entire material, this Court by its
order dated 25/04/2025 passed in Criminal Application
(BA) No. 1083/2024 has scanned in detail the entire
material and rejected the application of the gang leader
Satish Gauri Nakke while was it was upheld by the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No(s) 50955 of 2025. The present applicant is the brother
of said Satish who is also involved in the crime and the role
attributed to the present applicant is much more than gang
leader Satish It is further to be noted that against the
present applicant eight crimes are registered.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts that the present
applicant is having active role in the crime, so also the past
history of the applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail,
hence the application is rejected.
( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/04/2026 19:05:39
