High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2024Rahul Punjaram SonawaneAge: 29 years, Occ: Agril,R/o: Deshshirwade,Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule...ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,At the instance of PimpalnerPolice Station, Dhule..Respondent …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3013 OF 2024INBAIL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2024Harshal Narendra Mahajan,Age: 24 years, Occu. Labour,R/o. Deshshirwade, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule..ApplicantVersus1.Rahul Punjaram SonawaneAge: 29 years, Occ: Agril,R/o: Deshshirwade,Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule.2.The State of Maharashtra,At the instance of PimpalnerPolice Station, Dhule..Respondents...Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr. D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent-State.Mr. P. C. Mayure, Advocate for Assist to APP.…ANDBAIL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2024Vishal S/o. Devidas SonawaneAge: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,R/o: Deshshirwade, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule...Applicant
Legal Reasoning
(2) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtVersusThe State of Maharashtra..Respondent …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4714 OF 2024INBAIL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2024Harshal Narendra Mahajan,Age: 25 years, Occu. Labour,R/o. Deshshirwade, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule..ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,through the Investigating OfficerPimplaner Police Station, Tq. Sakri,Dist. Dhule.2.Vishal S/o. Devidas SonawaneAge: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,R/o: Deshshirwade, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule...Respondents...Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Respondent-State.Mr. H. P. Randhir, Advocate for Assist to APP.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Reserved On : 13th DECEMBER, 2024.Pronounced On : 18th DECEMBER 2024.ORDER:-1.These are successive bail applications of the applicants forgrant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.0039/2021(Sessions Case No.103/2021) registered with Pimplaner PoliceStation, Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 51(B) of theNational Disaster Management Act. (3) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odt2.Heard Mr. Bhosle and Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocatesappearing for the applicants in respective bail applications, Mr.Bhange, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State and Mr.Mayure and Mr. Randhir, learned Advocate appearing forcomplainant in respective applications.3.The investigation was set in motion on the basis ofinformation given by Mr. Harshal Mahajan alleging that he runs apan shop in the vicinity of Bus Stand of village Deshshirwade.However, accused Rahul was raising quarrel with him andthreatening to remove pan shop. Previously, complaint was lodgedto police station in respect of quarrel between informant andaccused. The maternal uncle of the informant namely DevendraSawale had mediated and settled the dispute. Still accused Rahulwas persistent in his activity and raising quarrel with informant.4.On 08.04.2021, accused Rahul and Vishal had tilted andcaused damage to informant’s pan shop. When informant informedmaternal uncle about the incident through phone call, he told himthat he will come and speak to Rahul's father and explain thesituation. Thereafter at about 07.30 pm informant and hismaternal uncle were interacting with each other, at the same timeaccused Rahul and Vishal alongwith co-accused persons rushed tothe spot. They were holding wooden log and sticks. They attackedmaternal uncle of the informant i.e. Devendra Sawale. The Rahuland Vishal hit wooden log over the head of Devendra Sawale. Hesuffered bleeding injury and collapsed. The other accused personsalso attacked and assaulted Devendra using sticks in their hands.The Devendra succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem depictsthree head injuries to the deceased. The cause of death ismentioned as head injury and first three injuries shown in column (4) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtno.17 with internal column no.19 was found sufficient in ordinarycourse of nature to cause death. During the course of investigation,statements of witnesses have been recorded. There are as many asfour eye witnesses. The first informant and his sister Pallavi areinjured eye witnesses. Their statements are consistent.Consequently, previous bail applications moved by the applicantswere rejected.5.The learned Advocates appearing for the applicantsrestricted their submissions on the point that applicants have beenarrested on 09.04.2021. Till this date trial is not commenced. Theyare behind bar for more than three and half years. There are nocriminal antecedents. The co-accused persons have been releasedon bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted bail to co-accused Punjaram Bhanudas Sonawane vide order dated17.05.2023. The role of the applicants and accused, who arealready enlarged on bail are identical. Therefore, on the ground ofparity, case of the applicants can be considered for grant of bail. Insupport of their contentions, they rely upon judgment of theSupreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.3173/2024(Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India) and Criminal AppealNo.2790/2024 (Shaikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ JavedAnsari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) to contend that indefiniteincarceration of the accused is not permissible being violative ofConstitutional right under Article 21.6.Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocates appearing forthe complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.They would submit that this is a case of brutal murder at publicplace. The applicants before this Court are main assailants. Thestatement of eye witnesses coupled with medical evidence (5) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtclinchingly points out guilt of the accused persons. The release ofthe applicants at this stage would create hurdle in smooth trial.The law laid down by Supreme Court of India in cited judgmentswould not apply in facts of the present cases. 7.Having considered submissions advanced, apparentlyprevious bail applications of the applicants have been rejected onmerit observing that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheetindicating their complicity in commission of offence. The presentapplications are pre-dominently moved taking plea of parity andprolonged incarceration of the applicants. So far as ground ofparity is concerned, while releasing co-accused Prakash andDevidas in Bail Application No.1104/2021, this Court observed thatpresent applicants were main assailants and role of Prakash andDevidas was secondary. Similarly, accused Govinda and Uttamwere released vide order dated 30.03.2022. The accused PunjaramSonawane has been released by order dated 17.05.2023 passed bythe Supreme Court of India observing that first three accusedpersons were aggressors. The role of the accused Punjaram iselaborated in supplementary statement. Further, his age wasdominant factor for grant of bail. Therefore, even going by theobservations of the Supreme Court of India, role of applicants incommission of offence is endorsed and benefit was given to co-accused Punjaram. Therefore, ground of parity is not available tothe applicants. 8.Second contention that indefinite incarceration of the accusedwould not be permissible being inconsistent with the right ofspeedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia, there cannot be quarrel over the preposition of law espousedby Supreme Court. It is true that prosecution cannot prolonge trial (6) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtand then opposes plea for bail. In case of Shaikh Javed Iqbal @Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari (supra), Supreme Court observedthat right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. Aconstitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to anaccused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penalstatute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In thatevent, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Inthe given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court maydecline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that undera particular statute, bail cannot be granted.9.Apparently, aforesaid observations are in the wake ofprovisions under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (forshort ‘UAP Act’), which restricts grant of bail.10.Similarly, in case of Jalaluddin Khan (supra) the Courtsconsidered bail application of the accused charged for offencesunder UAP Act and granted bail holding that material in thecharge-sheet is not sufficient to make out offence under UAP Actand, therefore, exercised constitutional powers to grant bail.11.In present case, report from Sessions Court regardingprogress of the trial was called. The learned Sessions Judge videhis report dated 11.12.2024 states that presently Sessions Court isbusy in dealing with old MCOCA case of 2021 and special case of1991 and as per directions given by Supreme Court of India, thecases older than five years are given priority. The charge in thesecases would be framed after some days. It is true that till this datecharge is not framed and applicants have suffered incarceration of
Decision
(7) ba-1018-2024 & anr..odtthree and half years. However, that itself cannot be ground torelease applicants on bail. It is not case where prosecution hasfailed in its duty to take requisite steps. As per direction ofSupreme Court of India old under trial cases are given priority andsoon present case would also be taken up for framing charge andfurther trial. The evidence on record clinchingly points out thatapplicants before this Court were responsible for death of victim.They gave fatal blows on the head of deceased. The incident hasnot occurred on spur of moment, but it was premeditated brutalattack. Apart from deceased, the informant and his sister havealso suffered serious injuries. The role of the applicants isendorsed in the statement of the eye witnesses, which is dulycorroborated by medical evidence. Hence, no case is made out forgrant of bail.12.Consequently, Bail Applications stand rejected.13.Criminal Application Nos.3013/2024 and 4714/2024 for assistto APP are allowed and disposed of accordingly. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/December-2024