High Court · 2024
Facts
922-ABA-68-25.odt {1}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD922 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 68 OF 2025Suraj Chandrakant MareVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Another......Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for ApplicantMr. S.P. Sonpavale, APP for Respondents No.1 and 2......CORAM: HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER, 2025PER COURT :-1.The present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail inconnection with C.R. No. 0050 of 2024 registered with Ambajogai CityPolice Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Section 323,327, 341, 365, 342, 365, 504 and 507 read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code (IPC). The applicant apprehends arrest in the said crime andhas therefore approached this court with the present bail application.2.The brief facts as revealed from the prosecution papers are thatthe first informant Smt. Bhagyeshri Anant Deshmukh, lodged a reporton 10th February 2024, alleging that her husband Anant Deshmukh hadentered into an agreement with 20 sugar factory, situated at Malwati,District Latur for harvesting and transportation of sugar canes. Pursuant 922-ABA-68-25.odt {2}to the said agreement, the husband of the informant had engaged agroup of labourers for the work. It is the case of the informant that afterreceiving payment from her husband, the labourers had absconded. Thehusband therefore approached the factory authorities and initially hadpaid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of the total advance of 7,00,000/-received earlier from the factory.3.The informant has further alleged that about 15 days prior tothe incident, certain officials of the sugar factory, without any priorintimation either to her or her husband, took away their tractor andthree small trolleys from their residence. Her husband feeling aggrievedvisited the chairman and other officials of the factory and requested toreturn the said vehicles, assuring them that the remaining amountwould be refunded in short time. According to the informant, duringthat visit, the factory officials abused and assaulted her husband andeven threatened to kill him if he persisted in demanding return of thetractor and the trolleys. It is further alleged that due to fear for his life,her husband began collecting money to settle the dues. On 9th February,2024, at around 8.00 p.m., while the informant and her husband wereproceeding towards Ranjit Nagar on their motorcycle carryingRs.2,00,000/- in cash, they were intercepted by certain officials of thesugar factory who assaulted her husband, forcibly took away Rs. 922-ABA-68-25.odt {3}2,00,000/- from his pocket and thereafter kidnapped him, confininghim within the premises of the factory. The informant claims that herhusband was wrongfully restrained and was released only afterintervention by some acquaintances. Based on this incident, theaforementioned offence came to be registered against the presentapplicant and other factory officials.4.The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that theapplicant has been falsely implicated in the offence at the instance ofthe informant and her husband, with the ulterior motive of evadingrepayment of the advance amount received by them from the factory. Itis contended that the applicant is a permanent employee of the sugarfactory and his duty pertains only to the maintenance of recordsrelating to the harvesting and transportation. He has no concernwhatsoever with the financial dealings or recovery of advances from thecontractors. It is further submitted that there are no direct allegationsshowing his involvement in the alleged assault or kidnapping. Theapplicant is a permanent resident of Latur and is ready to cooperatewith the investigation. Considering that the investigation is alreadycomplete and the charge-sheet has been filed, custodial interrogationaccording to the learned advocate is not required. It is also pointed outthat one of the co-accused, namely Yogesh Deshmukh has already been 922-ABA-68-25.odt {4}released on bail by the competent Court and hence on the principle ofparity, the present applicant deserves similar protection.5.Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the application,contending that the FIR discloses a series of incidents constituting graveoffences. It is argued that there are four distinct incidences; firstly, thetaking away of the informant's tractor and trolleys by factory personnel;secondly, the assault on her husband when he visited the factory torequest the officials to return the vehicles; thirdly, the threats to kidnapand kill the husband; and fourth, snatching of Rs. 2,00,000/- followedby the kidnapping and wrongful confinement of the victim. The learnedAPP has further relied upon the statement of the victim himself, whohas specifically attributed the role to the present applicant in connectionwith these events. He also referred to a mobile phone recordingallegedly produced by the victim's brother, Digambar, wherein aconversation between him and the present applicant purportedly showsthat the applicant had instructed one Avinash to take away the vehicles.According to the prosecution, the material on record particularly thestatements of the informant, her husband, and his brother, along withthe said recording sufficiently connect the present applicant to theoffence. The learned app therefore submitted that the applicant'scustodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation. 922-ABA-68-25.odt {5}6.I have carefully perused the investigation papers producedbefore me. It is not disputed that the investigation has now beencompleted and the charge-sheet has been filed. The statement of theinformant was recorded by the learned judicial magistrate under section164 of Cr.P.C. on 14th March 2024. However, the record reveals that soonthereafter, on 19th March 2024, she gave a supplementary statementmaking several corrections and modifications to her earlier statement.Such discrepancies certainly cast a shadow on the reliability of theversion given by the informant. The so-called call recording panchammaprepared during investigation mentions the conversation between theapplicant and the victim's brother, but even that transcript only refers tothe incident of taking away the vehicles and does not mention any actor instruction by the applicant relating to the alleged kidnapping orassault. The statements of other witnesses appear to be hearsay innature and there are no independent eyewitnesses which have actuallyseen the alleged assault or abduction. The medical certificates of theinformant and her husband have also been perused. The certificatesmention minor trauma to the chest and right knee but clearly notes thatthere were no visible external injuries or deformities. Such medicalevidence therefore does not corroborate the allegations of the violentassault or as narrated in the FIR. Apart from the statements of the
Legal Reasoning
922-ABA-68-25.odt {6}informant, the victim and his brother Digambar, there is no othermaterial substantiating the allegation of kidnapping or wrongfulconfinement. In light of these circumstances, the evidentiary value ofthe prosecution material appears weak. It is well settled principle of lawthat once the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed,custodial interrogation of the accused is rarely necessary unless thereare exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptionalcircumstance has been shown by the prosecution. The applicant is apermanent employee of the sugar factory and a resident of Latur, thereis no likelihood of his absconding. Moreover, the co-accused has alreadybeen released on bail considering the parity, the nature of allegationsand the fact that the applicant's involvement appears limited andindirect. I am of the opinion that the applicant deserves the protectionof anticipatory bail. At the same time, it is necessary to impose suitableconditions to ensure that he co-operates with the investigation and doesnot tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. 7.Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion and after carefullyweighing the rival submissions, I find that the applicant has made out acase for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following order ispassed:
Decision
922-ABA-68-25.odt {7}ORDER(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 68 of 2025 is herebyallowed.(ii)In the event of arrest of the applicant Suraj ChandrakantMore in connection with Crime No.0050 of 2024 registeredwith Ambajogai City Police Station, District Beed for offencespunishable under Sections 323, 327, 341, 342, 365, 504 and507 read with section 34 of IPC, he shall be released on bailupon his executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with oneor two sureties in the like amount.(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as andwhen required by the investigating officer and shallco-operate with the investigation.(iv)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidenceor influence the witnesses in any manner.(v)In case of breach of any of these conditions, the prosecutionshall be at liberty to move for cancellation of this bail.(vi)Application stands disposed of. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE S P Rane