Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
{1} BA 584.24 F.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 584 OF 2024ASHOK RAMRAJE PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.…Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for applicant.Mr. P.D. Patil, APP for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATE :- 19TH JULY, 2024. ORDER :-1.The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with CrimeNo. 93 of 2023 registered with Shiradhon Police Station, Dist.Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324,323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.2.The investigation was set in motion on the basis ofinformation given by Ashabai Mahadeo Kale. She states that on8.6.2023, she was at home alongwith her husband and family members.All of them were sitting on a platform in front of the house. Suddenly,accused Vikas Kale, Suraj Pawar, Gangaram Pawar, Bablu Pawar, Bappa @Khajya Ramraje Pawar and other 3 persons, rushed towards her house ina Scorpio Jeep. After alighting from the vehicle, they caught hold of herhusband, dragged him in the house. They barged into the room andassaulted her husband. Although she made attempt to rescue him,
Legal Reasoning
{2} BA 584.24 F.odtaccused persons continued to assault him by Kick and fist blows and thendragged him to the vehicle. The report of incident was given to police.Lateron, dead body of informant’s husband was found near Mangrul PatiBus Stop. Consequently, offence came to be registered against 6 namedand 3 unnamed accused persons. The accused persons were arrested on18th August, 2023. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came tobe filed.3.Mr. Jadhavar, learned advocate for the applicant submits thatname of the applicant is not appearing in the FIR. Prosecution is trying tocontend that accused Bappa @ Khajya referred in the FIR is theapplicant. Even otherwise no specific role is attributed to the applicant incommission of offence. The applicant is behind bars for more than oneyear. The trial has not commenced till this date. Nothing is recoveredfrom the applicant during the course of investigation. No incriminatingcircumstances can be gathered so as to establish the complicity of theapplicant with the crime in question. He would, therefore, urge torelease the applicant on bail.5.Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposes the bailapplication. He would submit that the name of the applicant is appearingin the FIR. Even the charge sheet would show his name as Ashok @Kharya Ramraje Pawar. He would further submit that this is a case ofbrutal murder. One of the witness Sardar Uttamrao Chavan states correctname of applicant amongst the six named accused persons. The deadbody of the deceased was thrown away after brutal attack and murder.Post-Mortem report indicates as many as 28 injuries on person of thedeceased. The cause of death is shown as “death due to multiple {3} BA 584.24 F.odtinjuries”. House search of the applicant shows that a mobile containingvideo clip of the incident has been recovered.6.Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparentthat FIR has been lodged by wife of the deceased, who herself is the eye-witness of the incident. She has named six persons in the FIR alongwiththree unknown persons. Accused No.5 is named as Bappa @ KhajyaRamsing Pawar. The statement of witness Sardar Chavan refers to thename of accused referable to applicant as Bappa @ Kharya RamsingPawar.7.The statements of other witnesses appear to be stereo typeand the name of the applicant is differently referred. In the entire chargesheet there is no clarity that the applicant is the same person as beingreferred in the FIR or the statement of witnesses.8.Coming back to the role of the applicant in the commissionof offence, assuming that he is the same person, as referred in the FIR, itcan be gathered that the deceased had some dispute with Vikas BabluKale i.e. accused No.1. The FIR alleges that in all 9 to 10 persons arrivedon the spot in 2 four wheelers and then assaulted deceased Mahadeo andthen took him away in the vehicle. No specific role is attributed againstthe applicant. The statement of witnesses are stereo type. The deadbody of the deceased was found later in point of time. As many as 28injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. However, it is difficult todraw an inference that the applicant is the author of such injuries. Sofar as other evidence is concerned, recovery of mobile is shown from theapplicant. It is alleged that the video clip in the said mobile shows that
Legal Reasoning
{4} BA 584.24 F.odtVikas Kale was assaulting the deceased. However, forensic report of suchvideo clip is not part of charge sheet. The recovery of cloths underSection 165 of Cr.P.C. is shown but no blood stains noted. No other otherincriminating material available in chargesheet. Consequently, it isdifficult to draw inference as regards to the exact role played by theapplicant in commission of offence.Even assuming that the applicant was present at the time of incident,whether he was member of the unlawful assembly would be the questionto be decided in the trial. The applicant is behind bars since last one year.The trial is at nascent stage. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer tothe judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Javed Gulam NabiShaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and other Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of2024, decided on 3.7.2024 wherein, the Supreme Court has observed inpara. No. 19 thus :- “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including courtconcerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect thefundamental right of an accused to have speedy trial asenshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then,the State or any other prosecuting agency should not opposethe plea for bail on the ground that crime committed isserious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective ofnature of crime.” The court has further observed that the object of bail is tosecure attendance of the accused at trial and it is indisputable that bail isnot to be withheld as a punishment.9.Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law and the factthat trial is yet to commence, applicant has suffered incarceration for
Decision
{5} BA 584.24 F.odtmore than one year, a case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, thefollowing order :-: O R D E R :[I]The application is allowed.[II]The applicant – Ashok Ramraje Pawar, be released on bailon furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) withone solvent surety of the like amount, in connection with crime No.93 of2023 registered with Shiradhon Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for theoffences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143,147, 148, 149 of IPC, on the following conditions :-[i]The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecutionevidence, [ii]The applicant shall not enter the village Mal-Karanja, TalukaKallamb, Dist. Osmanabad till disposal of sessions trial.[iii]The applicant shall not indulge in similar offences.[iv]The application is accordingly disposed of. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] JUDGE grt/-