High Court
Legal Reasoning
- 5 -aba589.23.odtdeath. It is also contended that the acts of the applicants who wereincharge of the jail clearly show that they were trying to hide materialfacts as CDR was not made available and the power supply of CDRwas disconnected.6.Learned APP also opposed the applications by placingreliance on the statements of inmates who, according to him, have noreason to falsely implicate the applicants. It is submitted that thestatements of the inmates were recorded much before they weretransferred to another jail. It is further submitted that prima faciethere is evidence on record to show involvement of applicants in theserious crime like murder. According to him, offence becomes moreserious when murder has taken place while deceased was in custodyof applicants. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail to similarlyplaced co-accused has been rejected and as such, according to him,it is a ft case for rejection of applications.7.Offence of murder is serious in nature and it becomesmore grave if it is a custodial death. Undisputedly, applicants wereresponsible for the affairs of the Sub-Jail, Jalgaon. Here it is not acase that applicants have failed to take appropriate steps for safety of - 6 -aba589.23.odtthe inmates. There is direct allegation of they being personallyresponsible for the death of the deceased owing to assault caused tohim. Perusal of charge-sheet indicates that on 10th September, 2020Ravindra Jadhav was admitted in Sub-Jail, Jalgaon. On 11thSeptember, 2020, at 12.05 pm, he was taken to District Hospital,Jalgaon. Perusal of medical papers shows that at that time his pulserate and blood pressure was not recorded. While admitting him, itis mentioned to be cae of withdrawal symptoms, however, this is notcause of death, ascertained by medical Offcer. He was declareddead at 12.40 pm. Post Mortem report records that there were 21external injuries on the person of the deceased. The cause of deathis specifc to say that death is caused due to injuries to chest.Though learned counsel for applicants sought to place reliance onhistopathological report indicating deceased suffering fromtuberculosis, however, prima facie, his death is due to injuries tochest and not owing to the diseases of the deceased. Thus, at thisprima facie stage, it can be said that the deceased has met homicidedeath than natural death owing to diseases.8.There are statements of witnesses who have seen presentapplicants causing actual assault on the deceased along with co- - 7 -aba589.23.odtaccused. As rightly pointed out by learned APP that statements ofinmates were recorded much before their transfer from Sub-Jail,Jalgaon to another jail and hence, their statements cannot be lookedupon as tented. As far as the statements of inmates of the barrackwherein the deceased was initially lodged are concerned, they are notrelevant as those inmates did not see what happened outside thebarrack. Correctness of allegations against Manoj Jadhav or veracityof his statement cannot be gone into at this stage in theseanticipatory bail applications. Moreover, considering the fact thatstatements during investigation are recorded after lapse of some timeand since the persons were lodged in jail at relevant time, anydiscrepancy in giving date would not be considered fatal at this stage.Suffce it to say that there are statements of witnesses who had seenpresent applicants causing assault on the deceased along with co-accused. There is every reason to believe that as a result of the saidassault, the death of deceased is caused which is supported bymedical evidence. Thus, this is a case wherein prima facie there ismaterial to indicate that the applicants could be responsible for thedeath of deceased who was in their custody in the capacity of jailauthority. Once prima facie involvement of accused is found in theserious offence like custodial death coupled with offence under
Arguments
- 1 -aba589.23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2023 Jitendra s/o Shenfadu MaliApplicant VersusThe State of MaharashtraRespondentMr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicantsMr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State.Ms. M. P. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate for the informant.WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 652 OF 2023Petres s/o Joseph GaikwadApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraRespondentMr. A. K. Bhosale, Advocate for the applicant.Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State.Ms. M. P. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate for the informant.CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2023. PRONOUNCED O N : 20th DECEMBER, 2023 PER COURT : 1.Applicants Jitendra Mali and Petres Gaikwad are JailCircle Offcer and Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Jalgaon. Theyapprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 548/2021 registered - 2 -aba589.23.odtwith Zilla Peth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offencespunishable under Sections 302, 143, 147 and 201 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code.2. The allegation against the applicants is about custodialdeath of Ravindra Jadhav, an inmate of the said jail.3.Wife of deceased lodged report with police alleging thather husband Ravindra was arrested by police and pursuant to theorder passed by the Magistrate sending him in the judicial custody,he was lodged in Sub-Jail, Jalgaon on 10th September, 2020. On 11thSeptember, 2020 he was taken to District Hospital, Jalgaon at about10.05 pm. He was declared dead at 12.40 pm. Post Mortem wasconducted wherein 21 injuries were found on his person. Cause ofdeath is injury to chest. It is alleged by the informant that hercomplaint was not taken cognizance of and as such she was requiredto prefer writ petition bearing No. 1706/2020 before High Courtseeking direction to take action against culprits. Since offence cameto be registered during the pendency of petition, petition came to bedisposed of. - 3 -aba589.23.odt4.Learned counsel for applicants amongst othersubmissions mainly relied upon the material collected during thecourse of investigation which according to them indicates that theapplicants herein are not involved in the alleged offence. It is theircontention that there is delay of about 1 ½ year in lodging of thereport after the death of deceased. According to them, infact thecrime has been recorded at the instance of one of the employees ofjail, Manoj Jadhav, against whom disciplinary action was initiatedand he was transferred to another jail. This, according to them, isthe cause for fling false report against the applicants. They reliedupon the statements of inmates of the jail particularly from barrackNo. 3, 4 and 5 which indicate that no incident of assault has eventaken place and that the death is caused due to alcoholic withdrawalsymptom and other diseases. In order to further buttress theirsubmission, reliance is placed on histopathology report indicatingthat deceased was suffering from tuberculosis of kidney and spleenetc. Reference is also made to medical papers showing opinion ofMedical Offcer about it being a case of alcoholic withdrawalsymptom. Spot panchanama is also referred in order to argue thatthe statements of some of the witnesses who were in differentbarrack cannot be relied upon as they had no opportunity to see the - 4 -aba589.23.odtincident of assault owing to the wall in between obstructing theirview. It is argued that statements of some of the inmates againstthe present applicants are for the reason that they were transferredagainst their will to another jail. They also submitted that there isinconsistency in the statements of these witnesses with regard to theoccurrence of incident on 9th September, 2020, 10th September, 2020and 11th September, 2023. It is also contended that the applicantsare falsely sought to be implicated in this crime and hence they areentitled for pre-arrest bail.5.Learned counsel for informant opposed the applicationsby contending that there is no delay in lodging of the report as acomplaint was made within 14 days of the incident. It is stated thatduring the period of Covid-19 pandemic, the informant had her ownlimitation in perusing the case and according to her, all attemptswere made to hush up the case. She, therefore, was compelled to flewrit petition in order to lodge report in respect of the crime inquestion. By referring to the Post Mortem notes, it is stated thatthere were as many as 21 external injuries and the cause of death isspecifc which relates to injuries caused to chest. Thus, according toher, histopathological report is not relevant for deciding the cause of
Decision
- 8 -aba589.23.odtSection 302 of Indian Penal Code, such accused persons cannot begiven beneft of anticipatory bail. Merely because charge sheet is fledagainst co-accused, investigating agency cannot be denied theircustody for effective investigation.9.In the result, both the applications stand dismissed.( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb