logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 322 print Preview print print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 17295 of 2025)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Parties : Jagruti Dhanesh Thorat Versus State of Maharashtra
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 13-01-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, 212 read with Section 34  -
Judgment :-

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellant who has been arraigned as an accused in FIR No.490 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 3, 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) & 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) seeking for being enlarged on bail.

4. The case of the prosecution is that one Sachin Sarjerao Garje left his house on the night of 14.09.2019 to meet one of the accused Vicky Deshmukh and never returned. Missing complaint was lodged on 14.11.2019 and after two months of investigation the present FIR came to be registered.

5. The investigation is said to have revealed Sachin Sarjerao Garje had left with co-accused Pritam Koli and another unidentified person and police uncovered that deceased had been murdered by the co-accused persons, Vikrant Deshmukh and associates and his body, initially disposed of in the sea and later retrieved and buried in a marshy land which was again was exhumed, burnt and remains crushed and disposed of to destroy evidence. It is alleged that appellant herein had played active role in accompanying the key member of the gang during which they procured arms and live cartridges. It is further alleged that present appellant owned the Soka Car which is said to have been used Skoda car allegedly used for committing the murder of Sachin and transporting his dead body.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that in all six accused have been enlarged on bail and particularly the mother, who would stand on the same footing as that of the other co-accused and as such on the ground of parity also the appellant is entitled for being enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would submit that principle of parity would be inapplicable inasmuch as the appellant, in the instant case, stands on a higher footing, namely, the allegations against her, being not only harbouring the criminals but also receiving the proceeds of crime and utilizing the same for her own purposes. Hence, on the ground of parity she cannot be released on bail.

8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we notice that allegations made against the appellant and other co-accused are almost similar and identical except to the extent of placing the appellant on a little higher pedestrian, namely, alleging that she had received the sale proceeds, namely, the proceeds of crime for her own use. In fact, the learned trial court itself accepts and found that it was money which was transferred to M/s. Jagruti Enterprises of which the appellant was one of the partner. In fact, it is also observed by the trial court that the said account is operated by the husband of the appellant.

9. In that view of the matter, the issue relating to utilization of the proceeds of crime, requires to be examined after trial. At this stage, the continued incarceration of the appellant would not be warranted as investigation has been completed and charge sheets have been filed.

10. Hence, we are of the considered view that appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside, and appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court deems fit including the condition of marking her attendance once in fifteen days i.e. 15th and 30th of every month between 11 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police till the conclusion of trial.

11. It is made clear that appellant should appear on all the dates of hearing before the trial court and violation of any of the conditions, including the condition imposed by this Court, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional trial court, if they so desire.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

 
  CDJLawJournal