IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2022
Pratik Satish Lokhande ………..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr …………Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
I, Mayur Jadhav, Aged years, Occ. – Buisness, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at House No. 99, Vakad Gaotam, Near Maruti Temple,
Vakad, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune, do hereby state on solemn affirmation
as under:-
1. I say that due to commission of various acts of omission and
commission on the part of the Accused including Appellant, I
lodged complaint with Wakad Police Station, Pune, which
resulted registration of FIR No. 896 of 2021 for the offences
punishable under sections 307,326,504,506 r/w. 34 of Indian
2
Penal Code, 3(2)(V),6,3(1)(R)(S) of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 7(1)(D) of
Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 4,25 of Arms Act and sections
37(1),135 Maharashtra Police Act. Wherein the Appellant came
to arrested by the Respondent No. 1.
2. That, the Appellant filed the aforesaid Appeal for his release on
bail in the aforesaid CR. And made me Respondent No. 2 in the
present Appeal and serve the copy of the same. I have gone
through the contents thereof and in reply thereto I have to state
as under.
3. I say and submit that nothing shall be deemed to have been
admitted by me for the want of specific denial of the same. I
hereby deny each and every statements, contentions and
allegations made by the Appellant in the captioned Appeal,
which are contrary thereto and/or inconsistent therewith, as if
the same have been specifically set out and traversed herein.
3
4. Factual matrix leading to the filing of the present reply can be
summarised as under:
4.1. That, I belong to Hindu, Matang Cast. I am
carrying on business viz. Miroscan Orange
Brodband, my business is running everywhere in
Pune city. Similarly, I am vice president of
Nationalist Youth Congress, and I am also
preparing for the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation elections.
4.2. I say that, on 26/08/2021 at 02.00 pm. when I was
not in the office, Mr. Sumit Madhukar Bhumkar
Bhumkar and Pratik Lokhande came to my office
and threatened to beat up my staff, they were
uttering racist insults (on my caste) therefore, the
director of the company Mr. Sandeep Donde, had
called me and told informed me about the said
incident. Later on the same day at around 3.00
pm Sumit called Yogesh and me outside the
4
house in front of Maruti Mandir. Therefore, I and
my brother went to meet co-accused Sumeet,
wherein he threatens me and said that we should
windup our business, he already went to jail and
he will kill them.
4.3. Thereafter, on 18/10/2021 at about 1.00 I along
with Pratik Salunke and Vishal Wakadkar were at
Gomantak Hotel. At about 1.30 pm. Accused
Sumit Bhumkar, Pratik Lokhande and Gaurav
Mahesh Naidu came there, they had weapons. I
tried to flee away from spot, however, Appellant
Pratik Lokhande caught hold me and assaulted on
my stomach by knife. Sumit Bhumkar hit my
head by sickle, however, I somehow managed to
save from said blow and sustained injuries on my
right, but, co-accused Gaurav Mahesh Naidu
assaulted me by hammer on my head. I fell down.
All three Accused persons beat me by cement
block. Co-Accused Sumit took knife from
5
Appellant and stabbed in my stomach and
humiliated me on my caste. While seeing Vishal
Wakadkar, who was coming from the said hotel,
the Accused persons runaway from spot.
4.4. In said incident, I lost my gold chain, wrist watch
and other articles. Mr. Vishal Wakadkar and
Pratik Salunkhe admitted me at Jupitor Hospital,
Baner. After came into conscious I lodged the
instance FIR against the accused including the
Appellant abovenamed for the offences
punishable under sections 307,326,504,506 r/w.
34 of Indian Penal Code, 3(2)(V),6,3(1)(R)(S) of
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 7(1)(D) of
Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 4,25 of Arms Act
and sections 37(1),135 Maharashtra Police Act.
6
5. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has
arrested the accused including Appellant herein and seized their
cloths by drawing panchnama, recorded statements of witnesses.
6. Consequently, after arrest of the accused including Appellant
they were produced before the Ld. J.M.F.C and after requisite
police custody they were granted Judicial Custody. After
investigation the investigation officer has filed chargesheet, and
the case was committed to the Hon’ble Session Court.
7. Thereafter, the Appellant had filed Appeal before the Hon’ble
Sessions Court, Pune. Wherein I had appeared as intervener and
filed my say, after hearing of arguments and perusal of say filed
by the IO and myself, the Ld. Sessions Judge correctly rejected
the Appeal of the appellant.
8. NOW I AM OFFERING PARAWISE REPLY OF THE
AFORESAID APPEAL:
7
a. With reference to para nos. 1 to 2 of the Appeal, I say that,
the Ld. Sessions Judge had passed the said order after
applying judicial mind and perusal of the evidences available
on record, which prima facia shows the involvement of the
appellant in the instant crime, therefore no interference is
required.
b. The contention made in para no. 3 of the Appeal is false,
hence denied, I state that, the Appellant has committed
heinous crime which is punishable offence under sections
307,326,504,506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 3(2)
(V),6,3(1)(R)(S) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 7(1)(D) of Protection
Of Civil Rights Act, 4,25 of Arms Act and sections
37(1),135 Maharashtra Police Act.
c. The contentions made in para no. 4 to 6 of the Appeal are
false, hence denied, I state that, apart from circumstantial
evidence, there are substantive and direct evidence against
8
the Appellant and other co-accused, which are enough for the
Respondent No. 1 to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
d. With reference to para no. 7 of the Appeal, I state that, after
murderous attack by the Appellant and other co-accused I
was admitted in the hospital and after gaining consciousness,
I immediately lodged the present FIR, therefore, there is no
delay in lodging FIR.
e. The contentions made in para no. 8 and 9 of the Appeal are
false, hence denied, I say that the name of the appellant is
very well mentioned in the FIR, as well as in other
statements and apart from his name his role was fully
described in statements. Moreover, the said incident was
recorded in the CCTV cameras, and in the CCTV footage the
presence of the Appellant can be seen, he was recorded while
assaulting me, his entire act has been recorded. Hence, it
cannot be say that, there is no evidence against him. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit- A is the copy of captured
clips of the CCTV Footage.
9
f. With reference to para No. 10 of the Appeal, I say that, there
is recovery of arms and armaments from the some of the
accused persons from their gang and the same is directly
linked with the criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of
the injured, that all the accused committed the monstrous
crime with the common object they all in collusion manner
planned to kill the Ori. Complainant, hence they all are
equally liable to prosecute under section 307 of Indian Penal
Code.
g. The contentions raised by the Appellant in para no. 11 of the
Appeal is unsubstantiated and baseless, hence, denied.
h. With reference to para No. 12 of the Appeal, I say that, mere
filing of the chargesheet is not a ground to grant the bail, and
since the date of arrest of the Appellant and other co-accused
I am getting threaten from the accused goons they used to
threaten me “that if I will not take my case back they will kill
me”. Therefore, I have filed multiple NCs against the
10
accused goons. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit- B is
the copy of NCs. I further say that, the accused goons crossed
all the limits and used to roam nearby my resident and my
work premises in order to threaten me or harm me. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit- C are the photographs of
accused goons roaming nearby my premises. I say that, the
accused persons and their associates are habitual criminal,
the accused No. 1 has criminal antecedent as 3 FIRs have
been registered against him. Therefore, if this Hon’ble Court
will release the Appellant on bail, there are threat of my life.
i. With reference to para nos. 13 and 14 I say that there are
enough evidence to prove the case against the Appellant. I
have further say that, myself and the eyewitnesses have
specifically named the appellant and describe the role of the
appellant in our respective statements. Moreover, myself and
the eye witnesses identified him. And from my medical
reports it appears that, the nature of the injury is serious as I
have sustained clean lacerated wound over umbilical region
11
which is 3 cm X 1 cm in dimension, is on the vital part of my
body. The accused of such cruelty does not deserve any
leniency from this Hon’ble Court.
j. With reference to para No. 15 of the Appeal, I say that, the
ruling of Sanjay Chandra is not applicable in the present
case.
k. With reference to para Nos. 16 to 24 of the Appeal, I say
that, since the date of arrest of the accused persons including
the appellant, I am continuously getting threats, the accused
associates have targeted me for my life, therefore, I have
approached the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Pune for police
protection and after considering the gravity of the situation
the Ld. Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.04.2022 was
pleased to issue direction to the concerned police station to
provide adequate police personnel for my protection. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit- D is the copy of order dated
26.04.2022. Therefore, in the event, the aforesaid appeal is
allowed, the possibility of committing further offence and
12
tampering and hampering witnesses by him directly and/or
indirectly would not rule out,
l. With reference to para Nos. 25 to 27 of the Appeal, I say
that, it’s a matter of fact, hence no comments.
m. I say that, I denies all the grounds raised by the Appellant, as
the same are general in nature and without any merits and
substances, so far as the act of omission and commission on
the part of the Appellant, injuries caused to me and
thereafter, operation treatment and medical reports are
concerned. From the documentary evidence concerning acts
of the Appellant and injuries caused to me by their unlawful,
illegal act, in no unclear terms seen that they having full
intention of my murder and attempted towards their such
aim, however, fortunately, I succeeded to escape from their
assault and infliction only by causing serious injuries.
13
n. I further, it is a fact that due to assault/infliction on the part
of the accused and more particularly the Appellant herein I
sustained grievous injuries.
o. I further say that, by the acts of omission and commission on
the part of the accused and more particularly the Appellant
herein I sustained grievous injuries. It is pertinent to mention
herein that by the aforesaid acts of the accused abundantly
clear that they seems to have planned to murder and thus,
carried with weapons and articles. I say that in the event,
inspite of commission of such serious offences by the
accused and more particularly the Appellant herein, he
released on bail there is every possibility of he would tamper
the witnesses and would commit further offence. Therefore,
at this stage it is not appropriate to allow the captioned
Appeal of the Appellant and release him on bail. Moreover,
the said vehicle of the Appellant is yet to be recovered.
p. I say that, apart from the bodily injury that, the Accused /
Appellant also committed various acts of omission and
14
commission by abusing me, over my caste, in filthiest
language, in the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the
Appellant by his acts of omission and commission committed
offence under the provisions SC & ST Act, which more
particularly pressed into service in FIR, which are very
serious in nature.
q. I say that from bare perusal of the complaint, on the face of it
appears that offence committed by the Appellant inasmuch as
therein specifically averred that I and my caste were insulted
by him. It needs to be mentioned herein that the incident
occurred in a public view therefore, the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 attracts towards the Appellant.
9. I say that from the instant FIR can be clearly seen that the
Appellant committed serious offence. Even if, inspite of
commission of such offence, the Appellant released on bail and
got him scot free, the possibility of tampering of witnesses and
evidence at his instance cannot be ruled out and further he
15
would become fearless and bad messages would go in the
society.
10.I say that, from perusal of the Appeal filed by the Appellant it
appears that, he asked for the bail on the ground of delay in trial.
So far as the instant case is concerned, Appellant is facing the
charge of attempt to commit murder which is punishable with
imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and
another, (2004) 7 SCC 528, while laying down the guidelines
for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences, has observed as
under:
“11.The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation
of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is
a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly
16
where the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary
for the court granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before
granting bail; they are,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of
the charge; (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan
Singh and others and Puran Vs. Rambilas and another.
11.In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has also observed
that the conditions laid down in Section 437(1)(i) of Cr. P. C are
sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the
Code, meaning thereby that in a case where a person is alleged
to be involved in an offence punishable with death sentence or
imprisonment for life, he cannot be released on bail if there
17
appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty
of such an offence. So far the instant case is concerned there are
CCTV footage of the said incident as well as eye witness of the
same, therefore, prima facia there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he has been guilty of such an offence.
12.I say that, the offences committed by the Appellant are
diabolical and heinous as the Appellant as per the FIR filed by
the police the Accused persons were to kill me and the same is
bid to foment insurgency in the area. The Appellant had
assaulted me on the pity issue.
13.The Supreme Court in the case of State of UP through CBI v.
Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, while dealing with
this aspect of the case has observed that a detailed examination
of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question
of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice.
The Court further observed that a brief examination to be
satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is
necessary. Keeping these principles in view, the statements of
18
prosecution witnesses, reveal that, prima facie, they have
supported the prosecution case. The Appellant is, prima facie,
involved in the commission of alleged crime. So there is
absolutely no scope for this Court to enlarge the Appellant on
bail on merits.
14.With regards to ground of long term incarceration, the same
cannot be the sole ground for enlarging an accused on bail,
particularly in a heinous offence. Even otherwise, the Supreme
Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar’s case (supra) has clearly laid
down that in a case where gravity of offence alleged against an
accused is severe, the bail cannot be granted only on the ground
of long incarceration.
15.The Appellant states that, the co-accused Gaurav Mahesh Naidu
had filed the Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay for his release on bail.
However, without informing/ serving me the co-accused made
false and misleading statement before the Hon’ble Court that I
have been served, though I had never been served either by the
19
co-accused nor by the prosecution, and in my absence behind
my back the co-accused succeed to get the bail. However, I have
filed the complaint against the said mis-practice before the
various authority and the complainant is intended to challenge
the said impugned order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit- E is the copy of the
complaint.
16.I say that from the instant FIR can be clearly seen that the
Appellant committed serious offence. Even if, inspite of
commission of such offence, he released on bail and got him
scot free, he would become fearless and bad messages would
pass in the society.
17.I say that I am filing the present Affidavit thereby opposing the
reliefs as is sought for by the Appellant in the captioned Appeal
and reserve my right to file my further detailed affidavit-in-reply
to the same, as and when such need arises.
20
18.Under these circumstances, by taking into consideration the acts
of omission and commission, conduct and behaviour of the
Appellant coupled with the fact of commission of such serious
offence, the captioned Appeal filed by the Appellant for bail
deserves to be rejected by this Hon’ble Court and therefore, this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reject the captioned Appeal
filed by the Appellant.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )
This ____day of February, 2023 )
Identified by me
Deponent
Hulyalkar & Associates
Adv. For the Respondent No. 2
21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2022
Pratik Satish Lokhande ………..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr …………Respondents
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Page No.
1. Affidavit-in-Reply
2. Exhibit- A
Copy of captured clips of the CCTV Footage
3. Exhibit- B
Copy of order dated 26.04.2022.
4. Exhibit- C
photographs of accused goons roaming nearby
Respondent No. 2’s premises
5. Exhibit- D
Copy of protection order dated 26.04.2022.
6. Exhibit- E
22
Copy of the complaint filed by the Respondent
No. 2
7. VAKALATNAMA
LAST PAGE
Date:
Place: Mumbai
Hulyalkar & Associates
Adv. For the Respondent No. 2
