O HARI DHULE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1572 OF 2021 DILIP S/O HARI DHULE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. A. N. Ansari APP for Respondent-State : Mr. V. M. Kagne Advocate for Assist to APP : Mr. D. M. Shinde ….. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2022 IN ABA/1572/2021 CHAYABAI WD/O DNYANESHWAR SHIKHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. M. Shinde APP for Respondent-State : Mr. V. M. Kagne Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mrs. A. N. Ansari ….. CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. Date of Reserving The Order 16-02-2022 : Date of Pronouncing The Order : 21-03-2022 ORDER : 1. Criminal Application No.171 of 2022 has been filed for assist to
Decision
learned APP. Said application is allowed and disposed of. 2 ABA 1572-2021 2. The applicant seeking anticipatory bail is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.361 of 2021, dated 23-11-2021, registered with Hingoli (Town) Police Station, Hingoli Distrit Hingoli, for the offence punsihable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. A. N. Ansari for applicant, learned APP Mr. V. M. Kagne for respondent No.1-State well assisted by Advocate Mr. D. M. Shinde for informant. 4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. In the FIR the informant who is the mother of the deceased Shivaji and wife of deceased Dnyaneshwar has disclosed that her husband had entered into an agreement for harvesting sugarcane for the year 2021-2022 and had received amount of Rs.47,000/- and then he died. It appears that now the son of the informant has committed suicide and the informant has no intention to repay that amount. She has lodged the false FIR. The applicant is serving as Supervisor with Narsing Sugar Factory, Parbhani. The amount is given by the factory towards the wages of the labours and the applicant has no concern with the payment of the amount. If the agreements are 3 ABA 1572-2021 seen, it was then stated that the husband had agreed to return the amount within three months which he had allegedly taken. Under such circumstance, there was no question of threatening given to the informant or her son which may amount to abetment. The physical custody of the applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation. The applicant is ready to abide by the terms of the bail. 5. Per contra, the learned APP well assisted by learned Advocate Mr. D. M. Shinde for the informant strongly objected the application. It was then submitted that the Investigating Officer has recovered certain agreements. Though it is in the surname of ‘Dhuldhule’, it is by the applicant himself and he had entered into the said agreement with many persons, each one of them was given amount of Rs.60,000/- for cutting the sugarcane for and on behalf of the sugar factory. The husband of the informant expired due to brain hemorrhage and for his treatment they had incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, her son Shivaji used to be under tension. In that mental condition he entered into the agreement with contractor Dilip Dhule i.e. present applicant and his wife Nanda, and he took advance of Rs.42,000/- towards the work as well as loan he 4 ABA 1572-2021 had taken amount of Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter, applicant used to give phone calls frequently to Shivaji and he was asking Shivaji as well as his wife to work as sugarcane cutting labour. In fact, 10 to 12 days earlier to the incident Shivaji had rescued himself in the attempt by the applicant to abduct him, and therefore, in fact he was left at his paternal aunt’s place. He had returned five to six days prior to the incident but Shivaji used to be under tension. He committed suicide on 21-11-2021. It is definitely due to the harassment and abetment by the present applicant. His physical custody is therefore required as he has committed a serious offence. 6. First Information Report has been lodged by one Chayabai Dnyaneshwar Shikhare against the present applicant and his wife. The wife of the present applicant appears to have been released on anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, but the bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the present applicant was rejected. 7. The contents of the FIR have already been reproduced, and therefore, they are not reproduced again. The evidence that is collected up till now shows that witness Raosaheb Deshmukh, who is Chief Agriculture Officer of the sugar factory, states that the Sugar 5 ABA 1572-2021 Factory enters into a contract with transporter for sugarcane after it is cut, but then it is stated that the said Contractor would enter into contract with the labour for which there is no connection between the labour and the factory. He has specifically stated that there was no direct contract between sugar factory and deceased Shivaji. Another witness Vishwajeet Ghatge claims that he is the transporter who had engaged contractor/Mukadam for getting the sugarcane cut by the labours. He has stated that in the last year he had taken amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Mukadams who had arranged for team of sugarcane cutting labour. According to him, he had given amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the applicant and then the applicant had thereafter given that amount to the labours. The labours had executed bond in favour of applicant. Each one of them was given amount of Rs.60,000/- and it is so mentioned in the bond. He has stated that one of the bond was executed by Dnyaneshwar Shikhare, and then he says that other bonds are with him, but after the offence was registered on the say of the applicant, he had given the said bond to applicant which was executed between the applicant and Dnyaneshwar by taking it from Sugar Factory. It appears that the photo copies of those contract have been then seized by the Investigating Agency. However, perusal of the bond it can be seen 6 ABA 1572-2021 that it does not bear anybodies signature. The CDR of the mobile number of present applicant’s wife has been collected. Even if we accept that husband and son of informant had taken Rs.47,000/- from the applicant and might not have been returning to the applicant, insistence to Shivaji, son of the informant, by the present applicant that he should return the amount, whether amounts to abetment, is a question. After the demand of the amount, if Shivaji would be under tension; it cannot allows us to infer that it amounts to abetment. Naturally the person who is extending the loan for extending the amount as a part of contract, and it is in the form of advance, contemplating that the work would be done as agreed for which the payment has been received, then insisting that person to do the work which has been promised by him, will not amount to abetment. It is unfortunate that the young person has committed suicide, but whether it was at the instigation of the applicant, is the question. Except demanding the amount, no other positive act has been alleged against the present applicant. That demand also appears to be five to six days prior to the FIR. Taking into consideration all those things, physical custody of the applicant is not required. He deserves to be released on anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, following order. 7 ORDER ABA 1572-2021 1) The application stands allowed. 2) The interim protection granted by this Court on 22 -12-2021 to the present applicant Dilip s/o Hari dhule is hereby confirmed. In other words, in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No.361 of 2021, registered with Hingoli (Town) Police Station, Hingoli District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r.w.34 of the IPC, he be released on PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties of like amount. 3) He shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner and shall co-operate with the investigation. 4) He shall attend the police station on every Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m., till filing of charge- sheet. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE vjg/-.