[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mohit S/O Dilip Marathe vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Ram Nagar Ps, ... on 27 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1406


     Order                                                                                  270126ba1189.25
                                                            1


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1189 OF 2025.
                                                   Mohit Dilip Marathe.
                                                       -VERSUS-
                                                   State of Maharashtra.
     Office notes, Office Memoranda of
     Coram, appearances, Court's orders                     Court's or Judge's Orders
     or directions and Registrar's orders.


                                                Shri R.P. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                                Ms P.C. Bawankule, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant.
                                                Shri A.A. Korpenwar, Advocate h/f. Shri R.K.Tiwari, Advocate
                                                Assisting Prosecution.



                                                                CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATE : JANUARY 27, 2026.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The informant has filed Criminal Application (APPP)

No.2628/2025 seeking permission to assist the prosecution.

3. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed and

disposed of.

4. The applicant in the present matter came to be arrested

in connection with Crime No.120/2024 registered with Ram

Nagar Police Station, Gondia for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act and Sections 37[1] and 135 of the

Maharashtra Police Act. Charge sheet in the matter is filed and

Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 120[B] of the Indian Penal

Code are added.

5. The first information report is lodged by one Rahul

Tiwari, brother of the deceased Rohit @ Golu. It is his allegations

that the accused persons are known to him since long. In the year

2012, brother of accused Banti Dawne was murdered, and since

the he was having a grudge against Rohit. On 22.04.2024 the

informant was informed by one Ajay Patle that Banti has shot at

his brother and he is lying in front of Shalimar Hotel. On reaching

there, he learnt that his brother was taken to the hospital for

treatment, and when the informant reached hospital, he saw that

there were serious injuries on the head of his brother Rohit. On

enquiry, Ajay Patle told him that he had seen Rohit driving a

moped. One motor cycle was driven by Hero Davne and Banti

Davne was sitting behind him. Similarly Mohit Marathe also came

there with his associate on motor cycle. Banti shot at Rohit on his

back side and Mohit asked Banti to hurry up, and they left the

spot. Subsquently, Rohit succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

report came to be filed on 23.04.2024..

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant

submits that so far as the role played by the present applicant is

concerned, the same is very limited, since he was driving

motorcycle and has asked the main accused, who has fired on

Rohit, as "Banti jaldi chal". He further submits that considering

his limited role, he may be granted bail. Even the prosecution

story is that the investigating officer has named one Satish Sen,

who has fired on the deceased. The learned Counsel invited my

attention to the orders passed by the trial Court in cases of Pankaj

Agrawal and Chotu @ Suyesh Choubey wherein they have been

granted bail by the trial Court. Considering the nature of

allegations, it is not clear that who has shot on the deceased,

whether it is Banti @ Rajendra Danve or it is Satish Sen, and

therefore, considering this weak piece of evidence, he is entitled

for bail.

He further submits that the prosecution has failed to

bring on record the circumstances on the point of criminal

conspiracy. There is no CDR, so far as the present applicant is

concerned to connect him that he was present on the spot. There

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

is also no evidence in respect of tower location, and therefore,

considering this fact also the applicant be released on bail. The

learned Counsel for the applicant further submit that so far as the

recovery of pistols and 19 live cartridges are concerned, they were

purchased some two years prior to the incident and it has nothing

to do with the present crime, and there is only one injury of fire

arm on the body of the deceased.

He also presses the ground of delay in trial by relying

on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Surendra .vrs. State of Maharashtra (SLP Criminal No.5139/2025

decided on 15.07.2025). However, since the applicant has not

pressed this ground of delay before the trial Court, I am not

inclined to consider said ground.

7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned

Counsel assisting the prosecution have opposed the application.

The learned A.P.P. has drawn my attention to the fact that first

information was immediately registered and statement of two eye

witnesses came to be recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. She submits that in the statement of

eye witnesses, a clear role is attributed to the applicant, as he is

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

shown to have accompanied the main assailant- Rajendra @ Banti.

Even two pistols and 19 live cartridges are recovered at the

instance of the present applicant under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, and it was the applicant who had sent the

photograph of the deceased to Satish Sen. She also submits that

there is one more offence which was registered against the present

applicant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however,

he was acquitted of that offence. Lastly she submits that there is

material against the present applicant, and therefore, considering

the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for bail, and

his application is liable to be rejected.

8. The learned Counsel assisting prosecution has invited

my attention to the common order dt. 24.04.2025 passed in

Criminal Application (BA) Nos.234 & 235 of 2025, wherein this

Court has rejected bail applications of Rajendra @ Banti and Hero

Shankar Davne.

9. Upon consideration of rival submissions and after

going through the relevant material available on record, it appears

that the first information was registered by the brother of the

deceased. He was informed by Ajay Patle about the incident. I

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

have perused statement of Ajay Patle and Anmol Sawarkar,

wherein both the eye witnesses have specifically stated about the

role attributed to the present applicant, that he was on the

motorcycle with another accused and the assailant was on another

motorcycle. They came near the deceased and Rajendra has shot

the deceased with fire arm. Accordingly deceased Rohit

succumbed to the injuries and was declared dead. At the spot of

incident, the present applicant had uttered the words "Banti jaldi

chal" and then they fled away on the motorcycle. Considering the

fact that the applicant was present along with the main assailant, at

this stage I am not inclined to grant him bail. Even this Court

while considering the bail applications filed by other co-accused

i.e. Rajendra and Hero, has in paragraph no.7 observed as under :

"7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the investigation papers, it reveals that there was previous enmity between the informant and the present applicants as the informant is the accused in a murder trial of the brother of the applicants. As per recital of the FIR, on the day of the incident, the informant has witnessed his brother proceeding on his motorcycle towards Kudwa Naka. At about 9:15 pm, the informant was informed by Ajay and Anmol that the deceased was shot dead as bullet was fired by applicant

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

Banti and Banti was accompanied by applicant Hero Dawne and co-accused Mohit and his associates. The statements of these eyewitnesses are recorded by the police as well as the Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC wherein also they specifically stated that on 22.4.2024 they had been to Gayatri Mandir and witnessed the deceased coming on the motorcycle and followed by two motorcycles and on one motorcycle they witnessed applicant Hero Dawne riding and applicant Banti was pillion rider and on another motorcycle Mohit had followed the deceased. Applicant Banti has fired the bullet on the back of the deceased. After firing the bullet, Mohit asked them to flee away from the spot immediately and they all four fled away from the spot of the incident. As the bullet hit on the back of the deceased, the deceased dashed against one pole and fell on the ground. During investigation, the bullet as well as the pistols was recovered at the instance of co- accused Mohit Marathe. Statement of Ajay also shows that the police came along with Mohit in his shop and at the instance of Mohit, the said pistols were recovered."

Even the role which is attributed to the applicant is some

what similar to Hero Davne. Hero Davne was also riding the

motorcycle, and even in this case the applicant was driving

the motorcycle. Admittedly considering the statements of

two eye witnesses and further the fact that there is recovery

Rgd.

Order 270126ba1189.25

of 2 pistols and 19 live cartridges at the behest of the

applicant, this is not the case where the applicant can be

released on bail. Criminal Application therefore, stands

rejected.

JUDGE