High Court

Legal Reasoning

ba1698.24.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1698 OF 2024Pravin @ Dodhya Premraj SirsaleVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra...Advocate for Applicant : Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, senior advocate a/wRamankumar G. Dodiya, Ms. Meenal S. Deshmukh i/b Mr. D.R.Deshmukh and Mr. V.A. Chavan APP for Respondent: Mr. N.B. Patil Advocate to assist the A.P.P. : Ms. Shilpa D. Magre h/f Mr. V.B.Patil ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2025. PER COURT :- 1.This is an application for granting bail under section 439 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with crime No.392 of 2023 registered with Ramanandnagar police station, Tq. andDistrict Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,201, 34 of I.P.C. His application with similar prayer below Exh.5 inSessions Case No.70 of 2024 came to be rejected by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide order dated 14.06.2024. 2.It is averred in the report by the informant that his brother ArunSonwane was having inimical terms with Sonu Adhale and his friendDodya @ Pintya i.e. present applicant. The said Sonu was dealing ba1698.24.24-2-with a business of sand and the punters were helping him. SonuAdhale is having his group viz. Baba group. There was quarrelbetween that group and brother of the informant Arun Sonwane.The boys of the said group were trying to establish their dominancein Samta Nagar area of Jalgaon city. Sonu Adhale was settling thedisputes between the persons in that area. One Rani BhaskarShirsath was the niece of the present applicant. Her marriage wasscheduled to be performed with Arun Sonwane on 24.12.2023. Thesaid marriage was opposed by the applicant. The applicant met Aruni.e. the brother of the informant and threatened him that if he willmarry with his niece, he will kill him prior to marriage. 3.The informant further averred that on 10.12.2023, at about12.00 noon, there was a quarrel between his cousin viz. GaneshSonwane on one side and Nitin Sonwane, Akash Chavan and TusharKalal on another side, at Wanjari Tekdi, Samta Nagar. On the sameday at about 4.30 p.m. when the informant was sitting near a Nala inDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Chowk, at that time, his brother Arun andAshish Sonwane came to him and stated him that they were calledby Sonu Adhale for settling the quarrel, which was occurred in themorning. They said that they are going to Wanjari takdi for settlingthat quarrel. Accordingly, the informant’s brother Arun and AshishSonwane went at Wanjari tekdi for settling that quarrel. After some ba1698.24.24-3-time, the informant heard hue and cry and he rushed there. He sawthat 1) Sonu Adhale, 2) Pappu Adhale, 3) Baliram Chavan, 4) AshokRathod, 5) Dodhya @ Pintya Shirsath i.e. the applicant wereassaulting Ashish Sonwane with the help of choppers. Due to thehue and cry, the parents of Ashish Sonwane, uncle NandlalSonwane, aunt Rekha Sonwane and cousin Nitin Sonwane rushed tothe spot, rescued Ashish Sonwane from the clutches of accused andtaken him to hospital. Thereafter, the informant saw that all the fiveaccused persons were assaulting his brother Arun by choppers.When the informant went to rescue his brother, the applicant andSonu Adhale abused him in filthy language and assaulted on hisneck. The informant tried to rescue himself from clutches and madehue and cry for help. At that time, his brother Arun fell down. SonuAdhale and Ashok Rathod assaulted on the neck of Arun bychoppers. The informant noticed that the blood was oozing from theneck of Arun. All the accused persons, including the applicant ranaway from the spot. Immediately some persons gathered there. Arunwas taken to the hospital in ambulance, where he was declareddead. The report was lodged on the same day at about 22.39 hours. 4.Learned senior advocate for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime. He has no criminalantecedents except the informant’s version and the statements of ba1698.24.24-4-eye witnesses. There is absolutely no material against the applicantto hold him guilty for the offences punishable under sections 302,307, 201, 34 of I.P.C. Learned advocate further submitted that noany weapon, like chopper etc. is seized at the instance of theapplicant. His alleged blood stained clothes are also not seized whenhe was taken in the police custody for one day. Learned advocatefor the applicant further pointed out that call details of the applicantare on page No.78, which shows the location of the applicant at M.G.Road, near Vijay Choice, Phule Market, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon,Maharashtra at about 16.15.59 hours. The second location of theapplicant is at Nahatha Hospital, Bhaskar Market Road, Jalgaon at16.29.44 hours. Thereafter, third location is at Nahatha hospital,Bhaskar Market Road, Jalgaon, Tq. and district Jalgaon at 16.49.06.He further pointed out that the time mentioned in the report that theincident had occurred after 4.30 p.m. within 5 to 10 minutes. Hesubmitted that the spot of incident is at Wanjari Tekadi. The distancebetween these three places and Wanjari Tekadi is more than 3kilometers. He submitted that it is highly impossible for the applicantto reach the spot of incident. He submitted that he has been falselyimplicated in the crime. He therefore, prayed to allow the application.5.Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State assisted by learnedadvocate for the informant, has strongly opposed the application and ba1698.24.24-5-submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence ofmurder. He was opposing to the marriage of the deceased Arun withhis niece Rani Bhaskar Shirsath as he was accused in a murdercase. He further submitted that there is strong motive on the part ofthis applicant for commission of murder. The quarrel took place onaccount of that marriage. There is evidence of two eye witness, whohave no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. Learned A.P.Pfurther submitted that the defence of alibi cannot be considered atthis stage and it is a matter of evidence. He submitted that if theapplicant is released on bail, he will pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses. There is strong evidence against the applicant and otheraccused. He lastly pointed out that the postmortem report wherein 34injuries are mentioned which are caused to deceased Arun. Hesubmitted that considering the serious nature of the offence, this bailapplication deserves to rejected. 6. Perused the charge sheet. The informant and the eyewitnesses have specifically stated that the applicant was present atthe time of incident and he had participated in the commission ofcrime. On perusal of report and the statements of witnesses, itappears that general allegations are made that the applicant andother accused also assaulted Arun and the informant with choppers.Though two choppers are seized but they are not seized from the ba1698.24.24-6-applicant. His blood stained clothes are not seized. No doubt, thewitnesses have stated that the applicant was present and he hasassaulted Arun and the informant however, specific role is not statedby the witnesses. The report is lodged after five hours of theincident. 7.Considering the above aspects, if the applicant is kept behindbars, no purpose will be served. The trial will take long period. Theapplicant has roots in the society and he has no criminalantecedents. Considering all these reasons, particularly vague andgeneral allegation of assault is made against the applicant and alsoconsidering the principle that ‘the bail is rule and jail is exception’,the application deserves to be allowed on certain conditions. Hence,the following order. O R D E RI.Application is allowed.II.The applicant in connection with crime No. 392 of 2023registered with Ramanandnagar police station, Tq. and DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,201, 34 of I.P.C. (Sessions Case No. 70 of 2024, pendingbefore the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon), be releasedon bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with onesurety of the like amount on following conditions:- ba1698.24.24-7-a)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecutionevidence and shall not pressurize the witnesses, in anymanner. b)The applicant, except on the dates for attending the trialfixed by the trial court, shall not enter in Jalgaon city tillthe decision of the Sessions Case. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/