High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCriminal Appeal No. 169 Of 2025Tofik Rafik ShaikhAge : 21 years, Occupation - Business,R/o : Oppo. Ratnakamal Mangal Karyalaya,Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Appellant Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Officer,Shrigonda Police Station,Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Alka Ram Sasane,Age : 45 years, Occupation - Agri,R/o : Sasane Nagar, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar... Respondents WITHCriminal Appeal No. 181 Of 2025Sahil Hanif SayyadAge : 25 years, Occupation - Business,R/o : Near Collector Officer,Ahmednagar, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Appellant Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Officer,Shrigonda Police Station,Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Alka Ram Sasane,Age : 45 years, Occupation - Agri,R/o : Sasane Nagar, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar... RespondentsWITH[1]
Legal Reasoning
917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtCriminal Appeal No. 183 Of 2025Mubarak Shabuddin ShaikhAge : 45 years, Occupation - Agri,R/o : Kothimbire Mala, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Appellant Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Officer,Shrigonda Police Station,Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Alka Ram Sasane,Age : 45 years, Occupation - Agri,R/o : Sasane Nagar, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar... Respondents WITHCriminal Appeal No. 184 Of 20251.Amin @ Aman Akbar Shaikh,Age : 22 years, Occupation : Agri,2.Akbar Nasir Shaikh,Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agri,3.Nisar Yusuf Patel @ Shaikh,Age : 37 years, Occupation : Agri,R/o : Kothimbire Mala, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Appellants Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station Officer,Shrigonda Police Station,Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Alka Ram Sasane,Age : 45 years, Occupation - Agri,R/o : Sasane Nagar, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahmednagar... Respondents[2] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odt****** Mr. Rahul R. KarpeAdvocate for the Appellants in all matters.* Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari KuttiAPP for Respondent No.1/State in all matters.* Ms. Karishma Sarin Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all matters (Appointed by this Court).***** CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 9th APRIL 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 16th APRIL 2025 FINAL ORDER :.These appeals are preferred by accused persons who are facingprosecution in S.C.C. No.1414/2024. Crime No.976/2024 was registeredwith Shrigonda Police Station on 03.11.2024 for offences punishableunder Section 194(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections37(1) and 37(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act 1951. Later on offencepunishable under Sections 103, 125, 125(A)(B), 189(2), 191(2) ofBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act are added. 2.On 02.12.2024 information was received that two groups werequarreling at Sasane Nagar, Shrigonda, Taluka Shrigonda on accountof driving vehicle rashly on the road and fire crackers. The Appellants[3] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtnamely Taufik and Nisar were not figuring in the report, but rest ofthe Appellants were there. The spot panchanama was conducted andnothing objectionable was recovered. Thereafter it was found that RamShankar Sasane was injured and succumbed to death on 17.11.2024.Charge-sheet was filed on 31.12.2024. Appellants – Taufik and Nisarwere also not figuring in the charge-sheet. Nobody from family of thedeceased or his friend came forward making any allegations againstthe Appellants. 3.Learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. Karpe submits thatthere was nothing against the Appellants when the charge-sheet wasfiled. Thereafter due to death of Ram Shankar Sasane which is notconnected with the incident of 02.11.2024, re-investigation was startedin the matter. Without securing the approval of the Special Judge,Investigating Officer proceeded to conduct further investigation.Belatedly on 15.01.2025, permission for further investigation wasgranted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrigonda. It issubmitted that there are no allegations or incriminating materialagainst the Appellants. The investigation is being conducted againststatutory procedure. The Appellants are entitled to pre-arrest bail onthe ground of parity because co-accused Feroz, Mansoor and Ateeqhave been granted protection. 4.Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that they did notcontribute anything for the medication of the deceased. The version ofso called eye-witnesses are doubtful because when charge-sheet was[4] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtfiled, they did not come forward. It is submitted that the incidentalleged against the Appellants is afterthought and fictitious. Thematerial collected in the charge-sheet does not show occurrence of anysuch offence. It is further pointed out that surprisingly on 17.12.2024,accidental death was registered. Learned Counsel would point out fromthe impugned order that all the observations are in favour of theAppellants but still the pre-arrest protection was refused just to giveopportunity to the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence, isperverse and arbitrary. 5.Per contra, learned APP tenders on record original papers of theinvestigation and opposes the submission of the Appellantsvehemently. It is submitted that although charge-sheet was filed on31.12.2024, permission was solicited and granted for furtherinvestigation on 15.01.2025. There are five eye-witnesses to discloseovertact of the Appellants. Few of them are injured witnesses. Theirinjury certificates and the postmortem report corroborate theprosecution story. A pendrive was recovered during the investigationdisclosing incriminating role of the Appellants in killing Ram ShankarSasane. The custodial interrogation is necessary as further investigationis in progress. Additionally the antecedents of the Appellants arepressed into service. It is submitted that mobile and vehicle are yet tobe recovered. 6.Learned Counsel Ms. Karishma Sarin for the Respondent No.2adopts the submissions of learned APP. Additionally she wouldsubmit that wife of the deceased submitted affidavit on 25.11.2024,[5] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtdisclosing the role of the Appellants in the alleged incident. It iscontended that serious offence has been committed and the Appellantshave pressurized wife and family members of the deceased.7.In First Information Report lodged on 03.11.2024, offence ofaffray was mentioned. But later on Section Sections 103, 125, 125(A)(B), 189(2), 191(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) came to be added. On 02.11.2024,Appellants with other co-accused are alleged to have involved inpelting of the stones and bricks on group of the deceased who werebelonging to the members of scheduled caste. They are alleged tohave been abused on the caste. Many of them were injured. It wasriot between Muslim and scheduled caste people. After about 15 days,Ram Shankar Sasane who sustained injuries on his head, succumbeddue to head injury. 8.The spot panchnama was conducted immediately on 03.11.2024.But nothing objectionable was recovered. The statements were alsorecorded. Neither widow of the deceased or his family members cameforward to state anything against the Appellants. Charge-sheet wasfiled on 31.12.2024. Application was submitted by Investigating Officeron 05.01.2025, informing that addition of the few offences. But theapplication was not either granted or rejected, only order of ‘seen’was passed. Later on another application was submitted on 15.01.2025by the Investigating Officer, stating that the deceased was found to[6] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odthave been injured and later on died and Section 103 was added. Byorder dated 15.01.2025, the Judicial Magistrate First Class grantedpermission for further investigation. If the additional offences underprovision of Prevention of Atrocities Act were added and reported on15.01.2025. It is impermissible to proceed with investigation prior to15.01.2025.9.No timely steps were taken by the Investigating Officer toapproach the competent Court to solicit permission for furtherinvestigation. Deceased was injured on 02.11.2024 and he wasimmediately taken to the Hospital. Statement of Dr. Prasant Jadhav,of Pacific Hospital shows that deceased was brought to his Hospital on03.11.2024 in injured condition having sutured wound on his head. Itis not understood as to why the steps were not taken to discover thetruth regarding assault. Inaction from 03.11.2024 till 15.11.2024creates doubt about the prosecution theory. It reveals from record thatthree Investigating Officers conducted the investigation without therebeing any coordination. It was offences under Sections 194(2), 189(2)or 191(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in between two groups,damaging few vehicles and also causing injuries on the number ofpersons, the spot inspection dated 03.11.2024, should havecorroborated the theory. 10.Another surprising fact is that the injured witnesses were takento Rural Hospital for the treatment on 02.11.2024. They were beingtreated and injury certificates were also issued. It is conundrum as towhy the Investigating Officer did not investigate into the cause of[7] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtassault and hurriedly filed charge-sheet on 31.12.2024 without evendoubting anybody when there was sufficient clue available with him.This has created serious doubt on the prosecution theory and themanner in which further investigation has commenced. I have myreservation for the manner in which the re-investigation has beenconducted. 11.I have gone through the spot inspection which was conductedon 09.01.2025, wherein bricks’ pieces were found, surprisingly afterone month and 20 days, which is difficult to be believe. Thestatements of Omkar, Rohan, Sandeep, Ganesh and Vicky indicate thatgroup of Sasane was being abused on caste in chorus by number ofaccused including Appellants which is improbable. No specific role hasbeen attributed to the Appellants. The allegations are vague. Few ofthe statements were recorded before granting permission for furtherinvestigation. This creates doubt about the real incident in question.12.The statements of injured witnesses and postmortem notesshowing various injuries on the body of the deceased are not sufficientto connect the Appellants to the assault in question. The InvestigatingAgency has recovered a pendrive wherein the Appellants are found tobe involved, but that is not sufficient to deny pre-arrest protection.13.I have gone through the criminal antecedents against theAppellants namely Amin, Sahil and Mubarak. A care can be taken byimposing necessary conditions for granting them pre-arrest protection.[8] 917.Cri.Appeals-169-181-183-184 -2025.odtConsidering material placed on record and the overall circumstances ofthe matter, the finding recorded by the learned Judge that forgranting opportunity to the Investigating Officer, application wasrequired to be rejected, is unsustainable. All appeals deserve to beallowed. Hence I pass following order :ORDER(a)Criminal Appeals are allowed by quashing and setting asideorders of the Sessions Court passed on 01.03.2025.(b)Appellants – Tofik in Criminal Appeal No.169/2025; Sahil inCriminal Appeal No.181/2025; Mubarak in Criminal AppealNo.183/2025 and Amin; Akbar and Nisar in Criminal AppealNo.184/2025 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest infurtherance of Crime No.976/2024 or SCC No.1414/2024 on furnishingbond of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for each of them onfollowing conditions :(i) Appellants shall cooperate the Investigating Agency andattend Shrigonda Police Station on every Tuesday andSaturday between 11:00 am. to 04:00 pm.(ii) Appellants shall stay away from Shrigonda and informtheir whereabouts to the Investigating Officer and shall notenter concerned Taluka, save and except for reporting thepolice station.(iii) Appellants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnessesor the victim in anyway. (c)Advocate Ms. Karishma Sarin is quantified fees of Rs.5000/- forrendering assistance to the Court. SHAILESH P. BRAHME JUDGENajeeb..[9]