High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 743 OF 2024WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1926 OF 2024DIPAK RAMNIVAS SHILLAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAMr. M. R. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. M. L. Sangit, APP for the respondent/StateMr. S. B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the informantCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 4th OCTOBER, 2024PER COURT :-1.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.107/2024 registered with Kaij Police Station, District Beed for theoffences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 107 r/w 34 of the IndianPenal Code. 2.The first informant Sagar reported to the police that thereare disputes between the informant’s family on one hand and family ofthe applicant on other. It also records that Civil Suit No. 484/2018 wasfiled before the Civil Court, Kaij interim relief of injunction was granted infavour the father of informant and for this reason Ramniwas, Ratan,Dipak and Rohit were annoyed with father of informant and others. Theyused to abuse parents of the informant and threaten them to kill if any945.aba743.24.odt1 of 5 complaint is made to the police. He also refers to the incident in whichRatan, Dipak and Rohit came to their shop and threatened father of theinformant for withdrawal of the suit. They alleged to have man-handledfather of the informant and also threatened him that if the suit is notwithdrawn they will commit murder of his father. He further states thatthe hearing of the said proceeding before the Civil Court was on22/02/2022. Father of the informant however did not withdraw the saidsuit and sought adjournment. According to him, on 05/03/2024 hisfather as usual went to the temple in the morning at around 7.40 a.m.He was followed by accused Rohit alias Luckky to temple. In the openarea near the temple he caused assault on him with sattur. He causednumber of injuries on his person and ran away from the spot. Father ofthe informant died on the spot. It is alleged in the first information reportthat considering the disputes between the parties with regard to theproperty and for not withdrawing the suit filed by the father of theinformant, he was killed by Rohit and was instigated to do so by theother accused.3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is noevidence in order to indicate that the applicant had participated in actualassault or has aided or abetted the commission of the said crime. In sofar as the allegation against the applicant with regard to hatching945.aba743.24.odt2 of 5
Legal Reasoning
conspiracy, it is his submission that the statement of Ajay Jadhav iswholly unreliable and has been recorded belatedly. According to himthere is no material to indicate that any such conspiracy was everhatched. By referring to the statement under Section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure it is contended that before police it was stated thatthe said conspiracy was hatched prior to a month of the occurrence ofthe incident whereas before the JMFC while recording the statementunder Section 164 of Cr.P.C. it is stated that prior to four days of theincident he has heard discussion of all accused person eliminatinginformant’s father. Thus, it is his submission that in view of the fact thatthere are disputes between the parties over the immovable property,false implication of entire family is sought to be done. It is submissionthat charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused and as such theinvestigation is practically over.4.Learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the informantopposed the application by citing that seriousness of the crime. It is thesubmission of the learned counsel for the informant that since more than19 injuries were caused on the deceased, it cannot be said that theassault has been caused by one person. It is is further submission thatthe witness Ajay is the friend of the co-accused and therefore hisstatement with regard to the conspiracy becomes acceptable at this945.aba743.24.odt3 of 5 stage. Learned APP also drew attention of the Court to the statementsrecorded during the course of investigation. She pointed out statementsof the sisters of deceased which also state about the threats being issuedby the applicant and others for eliminating father of the deceased.Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the application also onthe ground that after obtaining interim relief, the threat was issued bythe applicant to the informant. 5.In so far as the occurrence of incident dated 05/03/2024 isconcerned, there are eye witnesses in whose presence incident of assaulton deceased has occurred. Even according to the case of theprosecution, co-accused Rohit with weapon followed deceased to templeand caused assault on the deceased. There is absolutely no evidence onrecord to indicate the presence of the applicant at the spot of incident orhis participation in the said assault.6.As far as the allegation of conspiracy being hatched by theapplicant and other co-accused to kill deceased is concerned, thestatement of Ajay recorded by police as well as before the JMFC, areapparently in inconsistent. At one stage he says that he has heard thesaid the accused persons talking about eliminating the deceased fourdays prior to the incident, before the police the same is said to haveoccurred a month prior to the incident. Apart from the fact that there are945.aba743.24.odt4 of 5 inconsistencies in the statement, his statement on the face of it is notreliable. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learnedcounsel for the applicant that the planning to commit murder wouldnever be done in presence of third person. The fact cannot ignored thatthere are disputes between the informant’s side and applicant’s side overthe immovable property. A perusal of the first information report itselfindicates so. Thus the possibility of the false implication is not totallyruled out.7.In so far as the further investigation if any is concerned,appropriate direction to the applicant to co-operate the investigationagency is sufficient for further investigation, remained if any. The Courtsoften come across with filing of complaints against accused at instance ofinformant once anticipatory bail application is filed. There is no reportplaced before this Court by Investigating Officer to show that anysubstance was found in NC complaint. Applicant has no criminal history.In absence of any material connecting him with the crime, there wouldbe no reason or justification to reject his application to protect his liberty.8.Hence, application is allowed in terms of interim order dated15th May, 2024. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp945.aba743.24.odt5 of 5