StateMr. A v. Indrale Patil

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1991 OF 2024Sandeep Marotrao Shinde VERSUSThe State Of MaharashtraWITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1994 OF 2024Marotrao Nagorao Shinde VERSUSThe State Of MaharashtraWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4787 OF 2024 IN BA/1991/2024WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4788 OF 2024 IN BA/1994/2024Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for applicant Mr. B. A. Shinde, APP for respondent/StateMr. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for the InformantCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 20th DECEMBER, 2024PER COURT :-1.Mr. Indrale Patil, learned Counsel, seeks permission to assistAPP. Having regard to the nature of offence, he is permitted to assistAPP. Criminal Application Nos. 4787/2024 and 4788/2024 stand disposedof. 2.Applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with CrimeNo. 61/2023 registered with Manatha Police Station for the offences957.odt1 of 9 punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 324, 506 of the I.P.C.3.First informant is the son of deceased Uttamrao Shinde. Hereported incident occurred on 2nd June, 2023 early in the morning, whenUttamrao along with his wife went to the spot for morning walk. At thattime, from Manatha Pati side, one white colour four wheeler bearingregistration No. MH 26 BQ 7114 came and had passed by them. At adistance of about 100 meters, it turned back and dashed against thefather of the informant from behind. In the said dash, father of theinformant died on the spot whereas Damodar Ade who was also walkingalong with the deceased was injured. It is alleged in the First InformationReport that owing to the dispute between deceased’s family and family ofapplicants, the deceased was murdered by dashing a four wheeleragainst him. There is also a reference about conspiracy being hatched byapplicants. It is a case of the informant that the conspiracy was hatchedin the agricultural field of Ballal. On these allegations, First InformationReport is lodged.4.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that nowinvestigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. It is his further submissionthat the only evidence as far as the conspiracy is concerned during theentire charge sheet is only in form of the statement of Pradeep SambhajiChabharkar. It is his submission that the statement is recorded on957.odt2 of 9 28.06.2023 though the incident has occurred on 02.06.2023. Accordingto him, undisputedly this witness has met informant on the date of theincident and in spite of the same, there is neither such disclosure to theinformant about the incident now sought to be stated by him and on thecontrary the First Information Report discloses about the conspiracybeing hatched at the some other place and at some other point of time.It is his submission that witness though is related to informant as well asaccused, he drew attention of the Court to the change report No.8958/2018 which indicates that father of this witness was a committeemember along with deceased. Thus, it is his submission that the witnessbelongs to the opposite group. It is his further argument that it can besaid from the evidence on record that there are disputes between twogroups in respect of the control over the Trust, educational institute. It ishis submission that having regard to the fact that the witness is from theopposite group and that statement is recorded belatedly, there is reasonto believe that he could be a got up witness.5.Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposedthe applications by contending that this is a case wherein the deceasedwas killed, pursuant to the conspiracy and there is evidence in the formof statement of this witness Pradeep to connect applicants with crime. Healso drew attention of the Court to the statement of Eye Witness Damu957.odt3 of 9 who has not only made statement with regard to the incident in questionbut has also stated the fact that applicant Marotrao who used to comealong with his wife daily in the morning walk did not come for walk of 2to 3 days nor he was present on the date of incident. According to them,this witness has also stated about the previous incident which he hadwitnessed in this school in connection with this accused. It is furtherargued by learned counsel for the informant that considering conduct ofthe present applicants, their case of grant of bail be not considered.Though their pre-arreest bail application was rejected on 08.08.2023, forover a period of a year they did not surrender to the police which showstheir guilt. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the co-accused - Suhas who was released on bail, there are reports lodgedagainst him for threatening witness and informant. It is thus hissubmission that this is not a fit case for grant of bail as there ispossibility of the applicants interfering in the evidence and pressurizingwitnesses.6.Learned APP has drawn attention of the Court that there areabout 8 offences registered against both applicants. Thus, it is hiscontention that since the applicants have criminal history, they may notbe released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicants makes statementthat he himself appeared in the Anticipatory Bail Application in one of the957.odt4 of 9 crimes being no. 140/2021, wherein the Anticipatory Bail was granted bythe applicants by this Court. He further claims that all these offencesregistered against the applicants are out of the dispute over the controlof the trust.7.There is no dispute about the fact that investigation into thecrime is over. As such, it is for this Court to consider the applications ofthe applicants for regular bail on the basis of material collected duringthe investigation. There is no dispute that except for the statement ofPradeep, there is no other evidence to prove conspiracy against theaccused persons. The incident in question has occurred on 02.06.2023whereas the statement of Pradeep is recorded on 28.06.2023. There isnothing on record to indicate that he was not available for recording ofthe statement. On the contrary, the statement shows that immediatelyafter occurrence of the incident, he had met the informant.8.Perusal of the First Information Report does not show anysuch disclosure being made by the Pradeep to the informant regardingthe incident which now he states about it in his statement. On thecontrary, the First Information Report shows that the conspiracy washatched at the agricultural field of Ballal. Prima facie there is materialinconsistency in the statement of this witness and First InformationReport. One more aspect deserves consideration is the documentary957.odt5 of 9 evidence which indicates at least prima facie that his father was from thegroup in the trust to the side of deceased Uttamrao. A statement madeacross the bar that now Pradeep himself is a trusty. To this submission,learned counsel for the informant states that Pradeep is not trustee ofthe trust. Leave apart the controversy as to whether the witness istrustee or not, there is material on record to indicate that his father wasa managing trustee and was from the group of the deceased.9.The law on reliability of belatedly recorded statement is fairlysettled to say that unless explained, such statement needs to beconsidered with pinch of salt. The possibility of concoction creeps in oncethere is no explanation for not recording statement immediately, ashappened in this case. In view of these circumstances and moreparticularly in view of the delay caused in recording the statementwithout any explanation thereto, this Court finds no reason to discard thecontention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this witness couldbe a got up witness. 10.In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for theinformant about the conduct of the applicants of not surrendering for theperiod of a year after rejection of Anticipatory Bail Application isconcerned, merely because the applicants were successful in avoidingarrest, it is not permissible to presume that since they are guilty, they957.odt6 of 9 avoided arrest.11.Apart from this, it is submitted that only in August, 2024,they were taken in custody and as such, this is not the case for releasingthem on bail immediately. This Court does not agree with the saidcontention of the counsel for the informant for the reason that nowcharge sheet is filed and the duration of the custody itself cannot becomesole ground for allowing or rejection of bail. The Court is required toconsider over all circumstances appearing from record. This Court primafacie finds substance in the contention of the counsel for the applicantabout there could be serious doubt about the reliability of the statementof witness Pradeep and in absence of any other evidence to connectapplicant with crime, bail application cannot be rejected. Similarly,absence of applicant Marotrao and his wife for morning walk on date ofincident is not sufficient to consider his involvement in crime. To do so,would be nothing more than speculation, which is impermissible in law. 12.One more aspect needs to be considered is about theallegations against the co-accused Suhas who was granted regular bailby this Court. It is alleged against him that after his release, he hasthreatened to the informant as well as to the witnesses. Though, NCRsare placed on record to support the said submission, however, there is noapplication moved by the prosecution for cancellation of his bail. In any957.odt7 of 9 case, the acts alleged against the co-accused committed by him after heis released on bail cannot be attributed to the present applicants.However, having regard to the seriousness of the crime and to ruled outthe possibility of any interference of the applicants in the evidence,applicants are hereby prevented from entering into the jurisdiction ofManatha Police Station till conclusion of trial . It is clarified that anybreach of this condition or any other condition would lead to thecancellation of their bail.13.Needless to say that above observations are made only forthe purpose of decision of these applications for grant of bail and neitherthe trial Court nor any other Court would be bound by the same. Hence,the order:O R D E R(i)Both applications are allowed.(ii)Applicants in connection with Crime No. 61/2023registered with Manatha Police Station, District Nanded forthe offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 324,506 of the I.P.C., they shall be released on bail onfurnishing PB and SB of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) each with one solvent surety in the likeamount each.(iii)Applicants are hereby prevented from entering intothe jurisdiction of Manatha Police Station till conclusion of957.odt8 of 9 trial.(iv)They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)bsj957.odt9 of 9