High Court

Legal Reasoning

1509.24ABAIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2024Ananda s/o. Chindha Koli, Age: 68 years, occu : Agriculturaland Social Work, R/o. Behind Chhaged Oil Mill, Ghat Road, Chalisgaon, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1]The State of Maharashtra, Through its Investigation Officer, Police Inspector, ChalisgaonCity Police Station, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2]The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. AshwiniSahastrabudhe & Adv. Jay Veer i/b. Mr.S.B.Kadu, Advocatefor Applicant Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, learned APP for the respondent-State Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the Assist to P.P. …CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :14.01.2025P.C. : 1]Heard learned counsel for the applicant, thelearned APP for the respondent-State and the learnedcounsel for the Assist to P.P. 2509.24ABA2]The applicant is apprehending arrest inconnection with Crime No. 24/2024, registered atChalisgaon Police Station, Taluka Chalisgaon, DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under sections 143,144, 147, 302, 323, 324, 504, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC andSection 37 (1) (3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act andSection 25 and 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3]It is alleged in the FIR that Anand Shivaji Agone[informant] resides with his family members at Chalisgaon.Shubham is his nephew i.e. cousin’s son and works in PoliceDepartment at Mumbai, was on leave and had come toChalisgaon. It is alleged that on 14.01.2024 the informant,Shubham, Akshay Agone, Shubham Tukaram Borade,Vinod, Vaibhav, Sumit, Rahul etc. friends had gone to playsem-final match of cricket tournament, against the team ofSaurabh Koli, Siddhant Koli, Vasant Bachhav, etc. and theteam of informant won. However, after coming out ofcricket ground above, three persons along with othermembers of team argued with the informant etc. andstarted abusing. That time Vasant Bachhav had taken out aknife and threatened to assault. However, that dispute wasresolved. It is further alleged that in the evening around 4O’clock they had gone for final match and had won it.Celebrating it raising slogans etc. they were returning.Allegedly in the office of Anna Chindha Koli [applicant] at 3509.24ABAGhat road Saurabh Koli, Siddhan Koli, Anna Koli, VasantBachhav, Pruthvi Kumawat and their companions threwstones at the informant etc. It is further alleged that around5.30 to 6.00 p.m. the applicant and others came in richshawand on motorcycle towards the informant etc. They gotdown and ran at the informant and others. It is furtheralleged that Vasant Bachhav had a chopper, Siddhant Kolihad cricket bat, Pruthvi Kumawat and 3-4 others had cricketstumps and after reaching near them, the applicant andChitra More pointed at the informant etc. and said asunder : vk..kk dksGh o fp=k eksjs ;kauh vkeP;kdMs cksV d:u;kauk ekjk [kwi eLrh vkgs ;kaP;k vaxkr vls Eg.kwykxys- [Anna Koli and Chitra More pointed towardsthe informant and others, said “hit them – theyare arrogant”.]Thereafter, Saurabh Koli assaulted informant with swordbut that blow was avoided by the informant by his righthand, Siddhant Koli assaulted informant on head with bat.Vasant Bachhav assaulted with chopper. Pruthvi Kumawat,Jai More and their other 3-4 companions assaultedShubham with stumps and injured him. It is further allegedthat one Rohit intervened to save them when VasantBachhav assaulted him on chest by chopper. On account ofassault by Saurabh Koli etc. informant’s other friends ran 4509.24ABAaway. Shubham was seriously injured and fell down. Still,Saurabh Koli etc. bet him with stump and bat. The policeRahul Sonwane and other staff came on the spot onreceiving informant. At that time,as the police staff camethe assailants started running away. The injured were sentto Deore Hospital where Shubham was declared dead. Onthe basis of said allegation, the FIR was lodged against theapplicants on 15.01.2024. 4]The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat this Court, by order dated 02.04.2024, has grantedinterim protection in favour of the applicant and theapplicant has attended the concerned police station and hasco-operated with the investigating officer. Thereafter,charge sheet is filed in the matter. The learned counselfurther submits that the Sessions Court had refused to grantanticipatory bail in favour of the applicant on the groundthat there were 10 antecedents against the applicant. Thelearned counsel for the applicant submits that out of 10antecedents, in 9 cases the applicant has been acquitted andone is pending. The learned counsel for the applicantfurther submits that there is CCTV footage of the place ofincident and in the said CCTV footage, the applicant is notseen. As such, the applicant is falsely implicated in thealleged crime and the applicant is 68 years old. Consideringthe said fact, further custodial interrogation of the applicantis not necessary in the matter. 5509.24ABA5]Per contra, the learned APP submits that on thedate of incident i.e. on 14.01.2024 at 10.00 p.m., witnessnamely Anand Shivaji Agone has given the name of theapplicant. The learned APP further submits that there aretotal 8 eye witnesses to the incident. The learned counselAPP further submits that on the same day, there were threeincidents and on third incident, Vasant Bachhav had achopper, Siddhant Koli had cricket bat, Pruthvi Kumawatand 3-4 others had cricket stumps and after reaching nearthem, the applicant and Chitra More pointed at theinformant etc. and said that these are full of mischief, beatthem a lot. At the instance of the applicant, other accusedassaulted Shubham with stumps and injured him.Thereafter, Shubham sent to Deore Hospital and Doctordeclared him dead. The learned APP further submits thatCCTV footage provided by the applicant is not of the spot ofincident and the same is being observed by this Court inorder dated 05.12.2024, which is as under : 2.Clause 9 of the report reads as follows :-9- vkjksihus ;kiqohZ ek- l= U;k;ky;] tGxkao ;sFksdsysY;k tkehu vtkZe/;s dsysY;k tkehu vtkZr iksyhlfoHkkxkdMqu xqUg~;kps ?kVukLFkGh vlysys lhlhVhOghxqUg~;kps riklkr tIr u djrk ncko Vkdqu rs u”V dsysckcr ueqn dsys ckcr ueqn dsys vkgs- okLrfod lnjxqUg~;kps ?kVukLFkG gs dqBY;kgh lhlhVhOgh P;k d{ksr ;srulqu vkjksih ek- U;k;ky;kph fn’kkHkqy dj.;kpk iz;Rudjr vkgs- rlsp vkjksihps dk;kZy;kiklqu ueqn xqUg~;kps?kVukLFkGh ;s.;klkBh nksu rs fru ekxZ miyC/k vkgs- rlspR;k ekxkZrhy T;k nqdkunkjkauh lhlhVhOgh clfoys vkgs rs 6509.24ABAR;kaps nqdkukps ‘kVj yxrpk ijhlj dOgj dj.kkjs vkgsr-R;keqGs R;kpsoj voyacqu vkjksihapk xqUg~;ke/;s lgHkkxvkgs fdaok ukgh gs Bjfo.ks ;ksX; ukgh- 6]Thus, the learned APP submits that theapplicant is involved in the alleged crime and this not a casefor grant of anticipatory bail. The interim protection earliergranted by this Court may not confirmed and theanticipatory bail application be dismissed. The learned APPon assistance from the learned counsel for the informantsubmits that the applicant is the kingpin and the assault isat the instance of the applicant. 7]Considering rival submission of the parties andfrom perusal of the record of eye witnesses, it is apparentthat at the instance of the applicant, other accused haveassaulted the deceased. The name of the applicant is givenby the witness, namely, Anand Agone on 14.01.2024 at10.00 p.m. in the Hospital and the FIR is registered on15.01.2024. There are eye witnesses to the incident. Thecause of death of the deceased in terms of P.M. report is asunder : “Death due to Hypovolemic Shock due to bloodloss from injuries to vital organs (Aorta,Spleen, Lung) subsequent to fatal stab injury.”Considering above, the injuries caused to thedeceased are serious and the same resulted into his death.The role of the applicant is clearly visible in the present 7509.24ABAcrime and the offence is serious one punishable with lifeimprisonment. In view of above, this is not a fit case togrant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Hence, theanticipatory bail application is dismissed. 8]The learned counsel for the applicant prays forcontinuation of interim protection. 9]The prayer for extension of interim protection isrejected. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC