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