High Court
Legal Reasoning
corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD928 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2024Shivshankar S/o Shivaji Mule Under Gaurdian of his motherAashvini W/o Shivaji MuleVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra ...Mr. A. K. Momin And Nikhat Momin, Advocate for the AppellantMrs. A. S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent StateMr. Kedar Balbhim, Advocate, Assists to PP...CORAM :Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. Dated:6th March, 2025PER COURT :-1. Heard Mr. Momin, the learned counsel for the appellant,Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State with assists toprosecutor Adv. Kedar.2. By the present appeal under section 101 (5) of the JuvenileJustice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Appellant/Juvenile in Conflict with Law (in short “JCWL”) through his motherhas impugned the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Latur, below Exh. 13 in Sessions CaseNo. 57 of 2024, whereby the application for bail is rejected for theoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in1 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24connection with Crime No. 299 of 2023 registered with BhadaPolice Station, District Latur. 3. Facts rise to the present appeal that, on 30.12.2023, theinformant Shri Tanaji Sopan Mali lodged the report with BhadaPolice Station alleging that, on 29.12.2023, at about 9.30 p.m. hisson Ranjit Tanaji Mali had gone to sleep in his Farm but on nextday i.e. till 8.00 a.m. of 30.12.2023, his son did not return homeafter fetching milk. Therefore, one Shri Hanmant Mohan Mule wasvisited at his farm to see his son on say of Mr. Bharat RamlingMule, the Dairy owner. After Shri Hanumant Mali visited his farmand seen that, Ranjit Mali was lying in pool of blood, with headinjuries and was found dead. Accordingly, said Hanmant Mulevisited the complainant and informed the incident. On the basis ofsaid report, the Crime No. 299 of 2023 registered with BhadaPolice Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 ofIndian Penal Code against the unknown person.4. After registration of Crime, on 31.12.2023, the appellantwith his mother attend the Bhada Police Station and surrendered.The I. O. recorded confessional statement of the appellant inpresence of his mother. Thereafter, the appellant/JCWL was2 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.5.On 03.04.2024, the Juvenile Justice Board, Laturpassed an order in Juvenile Case No. 42 of 2024 holding that, theappellant/ JCWL is aged about 17 years and 7 months but he hascommitted heinous and serious offence of brutal murder ofdeceased. Therefore, considering mental and psychiatric Report aswell as maturity of understanding of the appellant/JCWL andgravity of offence, the appellant no benefits of juvenility wasextended and directed the appellant to be tried as an adult andtransferred said proceeding to the Children Court i.e. SpecialChildren Court, Latur. The appellant has not challenged said orderbefore the Appellate Court under Section 101 of the JuvenileJustice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Thereafter, saidcase is registered as Sessions Case No. 57 of 2024 and as on todaytrial of said case is pending.6. The appellant filed Exh. 13 an application under section 439of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for enlarge him on bailin Crime No. 299 of 2023. On 30.04.2024, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge passed the impugned order holding that, thestatements of witnesses are shows that, the appellant/JCWL has3 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24committed serious crime. The weapon scythe has been recoveredon disclosure statement of the appellant/JCWL. The appellant/JCWL committed murder of deceased with preplan and cool mind.The confessional statement of the appellant shows about how hehad hatched the plan to commit the crime, hence, declined torelease the appellant on bail. Being aggrieved by said order,present appeal filed u/s 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care andProtection of Children) Act, 2015.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassedthat, there is no direct eye witness to the incident. However, caseof the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as well asconfessional statement of the appellant, which is allegedlyrecorded by the Investigation Officer. Therefore, said confessionalstatement of the appellant cannot be relied at this stage. Further,recovery of weapon under section 27 of the Evidence Act can notbe the good ground to deny the bail. The appellant is in jail since04.01.2024 and more than one year is over, hence, consideringnature of offence and delay in trial prayed for bail.8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied oncase of Mohammad Inayatullah Vs. The State of Maharashtra,4 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-241976 AIR 483, wherein, the appellant was charged for the offenceof theft of three drums of chemicals and he was taken into policecustody. On interrogation, the appellant accused had disclosedthe place of deposit of three chemical drums which were recoveredfrom the place disclosed by the accused. Under the circumstance,in respect of recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act, theHon’ble Supreme Court laid guidelines for bringing the section intooperation as under:(i) The discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, inconsequence of the information received from a personaccused of an offence;(ii) The discovery of such fact must be deposed to;(iii) At the time of the receipt of the information, the accusedmust be in police custody; and (iv) Only “so much of the information” as relates distinctly tothe fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of theinformation has to be excluded.9. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied onJuvenile In conflict with Law Vs. The State of Rajasthan & another,decided on 14th August, 2024 in Criminal Appeal arising out ofSpecial Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 9566 of 2024, wherein theJuvenile, through his guardian had preferred an appeal challengingthe order of rejection of second bail application by the Juvenile5 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24Justice Board. Crime against Juvenile was registered for offencespunishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act, 2012 and two days before filing of the charge sheet,an application made by the appellant under section 12(1) of theJuvenile Justice Act was rejected. Taking into consideration ofSection 12 of the POCSO Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court releasedthe Juvenile on bail.10. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied onthe order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the Division Bench of thisCourt in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2025, Vijay Uddhav GhatcherleVs. the State of Maharashtra, wherein the offences punishableunder Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 212, 216 read with Section 34 ofIndian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) ofM.C.O.C. Act were registered against the Juvenile alongwith otheraccused persons. Therefore, considering the role played by theappellant/ Juvenile and he was sent in observation Home for aperiod of three years and was to be shifted to Yerwada CentalPrison, the Juvenile was released on bail.11. Per contra, the learned APP canvased that, statement6 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24of witness Nikhil Jyotiram Puri recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., statements of Hanmant Mohan Mule, Akbar Usman Shaikhand seizure Panchanama of Clothes of appellant as well asMemorandum Panchanama and confessional statement of theAccused show that, the accused with cool mind had prepared theplan to commit the murder of deceased and in the night time theappellant committed brutal murder of deceased on suspicion that,the deceased was having illicit relation of his mother. Thestatements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,show that the appellant/JCWL with preplan committed murder,therefore, if the appellant accused is released on bail in that event,there will adverse impact on mind set of the witnesses and there isevery possibility of tampering of the prosecution witnesses. Henceprayed for rejection of the appeal.12. Needless to say that as per contents of F.I.R., on 29.12.2023, the deceased visited at his farm to sleep and on next daymorning he was to fetch the cattle milk and to deliver at Dairy.However, on 30.12.2023, the deceased did not return at his home,therefore, the dairy owner had sent his man to see the deceased athis farm. When Hanmant Mule visited the farm of deceased, atthat time, he found the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with7 of 9 corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24severe injuries on head and dead. The material placed on recordshows that, on 31st December, 2021, the appellant JCWL with hismother visited the police station and the appellant himselfsurrender before the Police. The confessional statement ofappellant came to be recorded in presence of his mother. Theconfessional statement of the appellant gives detailed story how hehad hatched the conspiracy and plan to commit the murder, howhe got sharpen the Scythe. The statements of witnesses shows that,the appellant/JCWL had planned to commit murder of deceasedbecause he was having doubt and rumors in his village about illicitrelation between the deceased and his mother. Not only this, itfurther appears that after commission of crime, when he visited athis house, at that time, his servant Akbar Osman Shaikh hadenquired about containing blood stains on his hand and weaponscythe and said Akbar Osman Shaikh was hesitating to pour wateron the appellant’s hand but the appellant had forced to said Akbar,hence, he had poured water on hand of the appellant. Thereafter,the appellant thrown said Scythe in the well which has beenrecovered under the Seizure Panchanama under section 27 of theEvidence Act.13. As per provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile8 of 9
Decision
corrected-bail rejected-928Apeal922-24Justice Act, the application for bail is required to be filed throughguardian but the application for bail was filed directly by theappellant. The witnesses as well as informant are residing in thesame locality. The Offence punishable under section 302 IPCprovides capital punishment or imprisonment for life, therefore,considering the nature of offence, which provides minimum lifesentence, I do not find that the appellant has made out case forrelease him on bail during pendency of the trial.14. In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant the appeal.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )JPChavan9 of 9