High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD962 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1032 OF 2024Akash Anil SolunkeVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. KarpeAPP for Respondents-State: Mrs. M. L. Sangit Advocate for Assist to APP : Mr. P. P. More ...WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3852 OF 2024 IN BA/1032/2024….CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated : December 10, 2024.PER COURT :-1.Criminal Application No.3852/2024 is filed for Assist to learned APP.The said application is allowed and disposed of.2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant,the learned APP for therespondent-State, and the learned Counsel for the Assist to APP.3.The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested in connection withFIR No.312/2022, dated 01/12/2022, registered with Nilanga PoliceStation, District Latur, for the offences punishable under sections 302,307, 279, 337, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.Page 1 of 8 962 BA 1032-20244.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is noted below :-The alleged incident from which the present proceedings arise on01/12/2022 at 1:10 p.m. However, prior to this incident, there wasanother incident involving the parties on 18/05/2021, which resulted inthe registration of an FIR wherein it is alleged that the father of theapplicant was murdered by 19 other persons including the informantand the deceased. Accordingly, an FIR was registered bearingNo.312/2022 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and otherallied offences.5.On account of the rivalry between the parties, it is alleged that on01/12/2022, when the informant, the deceased, and others (accused inthe earlier FIR No.129/2021) were traveling to the court, an incidentoccurred approximately 25 to 30 km from the court premises. Theapplicant along with others assaulted the informant and othersincluding informant’s father who died on account of the assault. At therelevant time, the applicant was driving a Scorpio vehicle, which heallegedly rammed into the deceased, Kiran, and his brother, Deepak.Both fell from their two vehicle (scooter-cycle) due to the impact.Thereafter, the applicant, along with Akash Solunke, Rahul Solunke,Shobha Solunke, Amar Solunke, Sunil Solunke, Ajit Solunke, ParmeshwarPage 2 of 8 962 BA 1032-2024Balaji Solunke, and Balaji Solunke, got down from the vehicle andassaulted Kiran (deceased) and Deepak.6.It is specifically alleged that the applicant assaulted Kiran(deceased) and Deepak with an iron rod, while others used sticks andstones. Subsequently, another vehicle (a Creta) arrived at the scene.The occupants from Creta disembarked from the car and furtherassaulted Kiran and Deepak. When the informant, Rahul SiddheshwarSolunke, attempted to intervene, they were threatened, forcing them toflee into a nearby field.7.FIR was registered on 01/12/2022 at 1:10 p.m. Kiran, who wasgrievously injured, was taken to the hospital but succumbed to hisinjuries and declared brought dead. Deepak survived with injuries. Theapplicant along with other were arrested in connection with this case on26/12/2022 and has been in custody since then. After the investigation,a chargesheet is filed, and the applicant has filed a bail application postthe filing of the chargesheet. All other accused are granted bail by theSessions Court. Page 3 of 8 962 BA 1032-20248.The applicant argues that there are ten witnesses to the allegedassault. Of these, six witnesses are accused in the earlier FIRNo.129/2021 related to the murder of the applicant's father. Some ofthe accused in the present case are also witnesses in the earlier case.Out of the remaining four witnesses, only two Madhav and Balaji areallegedly independent witnesses with no connection to the ongoingdisputes between the parties.9.Upon reviewing Madhav Solunke's statement, it is to be notedthat he arrived at the scene around 10:50 a.m. He has stated that theapplicant and others got down from the Scorpio, and the applicantassaulted Kiran with an iron rod on the head, stomach, and back,causing injuries. Madhav also mentioned that Rahul Solunke used aniron rod to assault Deepak, while Parmeshwar, Balaji, and Anant Mohiteused sticks to assault Deepak. Balaji's statement corroborates Madhav'sversion, detailing the roles of the various accused individuals.10.The medical report reveals multiple injuries on the deceased,which can be attributed to assaults by various individuals. While nosingle injury is identified as fatal, the cumulative impact of 32 injuriesled to Kiran's death. The learned APP and Mr. More, appearing for thePage 4 of 8 962 BA 1032-2024informant, argued that the applicant intentionally hit the two wheeler onwhich the deceased was travelling with the Scorpio with the intention tokill the deceased and subsequently assaulted the deceased with theintent to kill.11.The prosecution also highlighted that the applicant has been atroublesome individual and even in custody, he allegedly threateningco-accused and is creating problems in the jail. They contended thatgranting bail could disrupt the trial and escalate tensions between theparties.12.Considering the submissions, it is necessary to note followingfacts emerging from the record.a) There is a history of enmity between the parties, with theapplicant's father allegedly killed by the informant and others, leadingto a criminal case under Section 302 of the IPC against the informantand others who are also witness in this case. b) Prima facie, the evidence from Madhav and Balaji suggeststhat the applicant was present at the scene and involved in the assault.Page 5 of 8 962 BA 1032-2024c) Other co-accused who disembarked from the Scorpio andassaulted Kiran and Deepak have been granted bail. However, theapplicant's role appears to be more severe as it is alleged that hedeliberately caused accident. However, on account of prior rivalry thepossibility of exaggeration of the applicants role cannot be ruled out.d) The medical report indicates multiple injuries on the deceased.However, there is not a single injury grievous enough which can causedeath in ordinary circumstances. The injuries caused to the deceasedinclude fractures to the legs.13.The offence although classified under Section 302 but consideringthe nature of injuries even if accepted as alleged could potentially fallunder Section 304 Part I or II of I.P.C. The possibility of exaggerationdue to prior enmity cannot be ignored. The other co-accused have beengranted bail. The applicant is in jail since 26/12/2022 (nearly twoyears). The trial will take long time due to large number of witnesses inthe matter. Thus, considering the above facts, the applicant deserves tobe granted bail. 14.It would be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant on followingterms and conditions :-Page 6 of 8 962 BA 1032-2024a]The applicant shall be released on bail in connection withFIR No.312/2022, dated 01/12/2022, registered with NilangaPolice Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable undersections 302, 307, 279, 337, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of theIndian Penal Code, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with oneor two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trialCourt. b]The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall notcontact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during thependency of the trial. c]The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and heshall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trialCourt.d]The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of theprosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnessesand other persons concerned with the case. e]The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place onrecord of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number andresidential address with updates in case of any change. f]The applicant shall not visit Yelnoor Village, Tahsil Nilanga,District Latur, till the examination of eye witness in the trial. Theapplicant has undertaken that he would not seek relaxation ofclause (f). Page 7 of 8
Decision
962 BA 1032-202415.Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaidconditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to becancelled. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order arelimited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concernedCourt shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced bythe observations made hereinabove. 16.The application stands disposed of.( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )vj gawade/-.Page 8 of 8