High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

-1- BA.1702.2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO.1702 OF 2024Laxman @ Lakhan Namdeo Jagtap,Age : 33 years, Occu. : Private Job,R/o. Bhaggao, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent……Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for Respondent – State....…CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 07 APRIL 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 09 APRIL 2025ORDER : 1.This is an application for regular bail on account ofarrest of applicant in Crime No.0206 of 2024 registered at M.I.D.C.Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad for offence punishableunder sections 302, 34, 35, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code andunder section 3/25 of the Arms Act and under section 135 of theMaharashra Police Act.2.Pointing to the date of arrest as 22.03.2024, learnedcounsel pointed out that, there is false implication. That, case isbased on circumstantial evidence. That, applicant is arraigned asaccused no.2. That, there are allegations that he shot deceased. -2- BA.1702.2024Learned counsel emphasized that, recovery of arm allegedly usedis at the instance of accused no.1. He further pointed out that, onlyalleged incriminating material is some conversation betweenaccused no.1 and applicant allegedly retrieved from mobile.However, learned counsel further emphasized that, even saidmobile was owned by accused no.1. Thus, according to him, onpatently weak circumstances, present applicant is arrested. Hepointed out that, it is a case of engaging applicant to commitmurder by husband of a lady with whom deceased allegedly hadrelations. Learned counsel pointed out that, such theory developedby investigating machinery has no foundation whatsoever. Hepointed out that, alleged shooting also is on pitch dark night. That,nobody has seen applicant arrived or depart from the scene ofoccurrence. That, investigation is over and charge sheet havingbeen filed in June 2024 and as there are no prospects for mattergoing for trial as till date learned trial court is only dealing withsome applications and orders, learned counsel urges for grant ofregular bail. 3.Learned APP opposed on the ground that though caseis based on circumstantial evidence, there are strong incriminatingcircumstances. He pointed out that, there is telephonicconversation between main accused and present applicant and -3- BA.1702.2024transcript of the same has been drawn, which according to learnedAPP clearly points out that applicant acted on the directions andinstructions of accused no.1 and he has pulled the trigger frompoint blank range. That, alleged conversation between mainaccused and present applicant is of 1200 seconds. Consequently,according to learned APP, there are strong and positivecircumstances against present applicant. For all above reasons, heopposes instant application. 4.Heard. Perused the FIR dated 18.06.2024 is at theinstance of Sahebrao Narode, father of deceased Sachin. In theinitial FIR he has reported that his deceased son was married toone Shila in 2009, but due to marital discord, his wife left him andso his son came to reside with him with the granddaughter. Hefurther reported that, in 2016 his deceased son came in contactwith a lady police constable with whom he maintained relations,however, at later point of time, difference arose between them andthey both remained disconnected from each other. 5.He further reported that, 15 days back some activity oflaying pipeline was undertaken causing damage to front-yard ofresidents of the locality and informant’s deceased son was in theforefront in opposing the same. He further claims that, on17.03.2024, at around 4:30 p.m., his son went along with Amol -4- BA.1702.2024Barshe, Amol Autade, Chavan Patil, Onkar and others for filling thedug pits. Around 7:30 p.m., fire cracker like sound was heard andwhen everyone came and went in the backyard of the house, hesaw his son lying injured. Informant claims that from said abovefour persons, he learnt that unknown person fired on Sachin,resulting into his death. Hence, on above information report waslodged. 6.Thus, as submitted FIR is against unknown persons. Inthe initial FIR father has reported about marriage of his son, hisfirst wife leaving due to marital discord and his son coming toreside with his daughter. Then he reported about illicit relationsbetween his deceased son and one police constable, but again due todifferences they both had remained disconnected three monthsback. Then informant has reported about his deceased son leadingthe movement of opposing removal of front courtyard for layingpipeline work. Informant has allegedly learnt from above namedassociates, who were in the company of his son after 4:30 p.m. on17.03.2024 about Sachin being shot by unknown persons.7.Learned APP pointed out that investigating machineryclaims that, accused no.1 and applicant are friends. Accused no.1engaged present applicant. Wife of accused no.1 allegedly hadrelations with deceased and therefore to eliminate deceased, -5- BA.1702.2024accused no.2 was trained and directed to shoot deceased.According to learned APP, strong and incriminating circumstanceis alleged telephonic conversation between accused nos.1 and 2 atthe time of incident.8.Learned counsel for applicant has asserted and madestatement across the bar and this is not denied by learned APP thatrecovery of alleged weapon i.e. weapon is at the instance of accusedno.1 that too under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Furtherstatement across the bar that alleged conversation betweenaccused nos.1 and 2 is allegedly retrieved from the mobile is alsorecovered from accused no.1. Such assertions are also not refutedor denied by learned APP. As stated above, FIR is against unknownperson. Incident reportedly took place in the dark. At least chargesheet does not show that companions of the deceased at the spotnamely Amol Barshe, Amol Autade, Chavan and Onkar and othersgave any physical description of alleged shooter. There is noevidence or material in the charge sheet at least about conspiracybeing hatched between present applicant and main accused no.1 tocarryout the shooting.9.Arrest is of March 2024 and almost a year has lapsed.Charge sheet is filed in June 2024. Learned counsel for applicanthas placed on record case details, which shows stage of the matter -6- BA.1702.2024as argument on Exhibit. Said stage seems to be since August 2024till 29.03.2025. This suggests that charge is not framed yet.Therefore future course of trial is obviously uncertain. Precisely inthe light of such facts and circumstances, application deserves tobe allowed. Hence, the following order is passed :- ORDERI.The application is allowed.II.Applicant Laxman @ Lakhan Namdeo Jagtap be released onbail in connection with Crime No.0206 of 2024 registered withM.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, on executingPersonal Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount,on the following conditions :[a]The applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence.[b]The applicant shall not leave the area of jurisdiction ofthe concerned police station till conclusion of trial.[c]The applicant shall attend the concerned police stationonce in every week i.e. on every Monday and maintain personaldiary of his attendance till framing of charge and thereafter, shallregularly attend each and every effective date before the trialcourt. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale