High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1011 OF 2024Mahadeo Kisan Avhad,Age 65 years, Occu. Agriculturist,R/o Pangarmal,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.… Appellant. Versus1.State of Maharashtra2.Shalika Ramesh Chavan,Age 30 years, Occu. Labour,R/o Pangarmal,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.… Respondents.WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2025Uddhav Mahadeo Avhad,Age 35 years, Occu. Nil,R/o At Post Pangarmal,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.… Appellant. Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its M.I.D.C. Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Shalika Ramesh Chavan,Age 30 years, Occu. Housewife,At Post Pangarmal,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.… Respondents.WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025Amol s/o Bharat Avhad,Age 32 years, Occ : Business,R/o Pangarmal, Ahmednagar 2 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtTaluka and District Ahmednagar.… Appellant. Versus1.The State of Maharashtra.2.X.Y.Z.… Respondents.WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1021 OF 2024Sandip Pandharinath Avhad,Age 22 years, Occ : Service,R/o Pangarmal, Taluka and District Ahmednagar.… Appellant. Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Superintendent of Police,Ahmednagar.2.The In-charge Investigation Officer,Ahmednagar, M.I.D.C. Police Station,Taluka and District Ahmednagar.3.X.Y.Z.… Respondents.WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2024 Ganesh Ambadas Avhad,Age 23 years, Occ : Education,R/o Pangarmal, Taluka and District Ahmednagar.… Appellant. Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Superintendent of Police,Ahmednagar.2.The In-charge Investigation Officer,Ahmednagar, M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Legal Reasoning
3 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtTaluka and District Ahmednagar.3.X.Y.Z.… Respondents....Advocates for respective Appellants : Mr. Jadhav Satej S., Mr.A. S. Khedkar, Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Mr. S. R. Andhale,respectively. APP for Respondent-State in all appeals : Mr. S. M. Ganachari.Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all appeals : Mr. D.R. Markad.Advocate for victim in all appeals : Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane....CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.RESERVED ON : 16.04.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 22.04.2025.O RDER :- 1.Heard finally by consent of the parties.2.These appeals can be decided by common judgment andorder. The appellants are claiming enlargement on bail as theyare arrested in furtherance of offence bearing Crime No.542 of2024, registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, DistrictAhmednagar for offences punishable under Sections 189(2),191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 103(2), 118(1), 115(2), 74, 76,352, 351(2), 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act andSection 37(1), 37(3), 135 of Mumbai Police Act. 4 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odt3.Their applications seeking regular bail filed aftersubmission of charge sheet were rejected by separate orders,by Special Judge, Ahemednagar in Special Case No.223 of2024. For the sake of convenience, this Court is referring tothe paper book of Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2024. 4.Appellants before this Court are resident of Pangarmal,Taluka and District Ahmednagar. Respondent No.2/informantlodged report on 04.07.2024 that incident took place in a nightintervening 03.07.2024 and 04.07.2024 in which her brother-in-law Changdeo Namdeo Chavan staying with her wasassaulted by the appellants and villagers. As per her report, atabout 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. on 03.07.2024, appellants Mahadeo,Amol, Uddhav and co-accused had been to her hut and armedwith weapons, started assaulting her, her son Ramlal anddeceased Changdeo suspecting that they had been indulging intheft of she goats of villagers. They were brought to the placeof Gram Panchayat Office where one more person wasdetained by number of villagers under the pretext of purportedtheft. All of them assaulted informant, her son Changdeo andthat unknown person who turned out to be one Pravin Bhosle.In the mob attack, Changdeo succumbed to injuries. Informantand others sustained injuries and were referred to hospital. 5 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odt5.All the appellants were arrested on 05.07.2024. Chargesheet was filed on 30.08.2024. Thus, for the period of ninemonths the appellants are behind bars. In this backdrop,learned counsel for appellants have made submissions beforeme. 6.Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar, advocate for the appellants inCriminal Appeal No.250 of 2025 filed by Amol Bharat Avhad,the Sarpanch has led the arguments which are adopted byother counsels. He would submit that assault on the informant,her son, deceased Changdeo and Pravin Bhosle was made byunknown persons in the late hours of night and in the darknessas there was no electricity. He would submit that in factappellant Amol who was the Sarpanch had called police andthe ambulance and helped the injured. It is submitted that firstinformation report does not indicate specific role attributableto the appellants. Villagers were perturbed because ofincidents of theft and the person who was apprehended Mr.Pravin Bhosle was habitual thief. It is submitted that there wasno intention to eliminate the deceased as he was outsider andthere was no enmity as such. My attention is adverted to thestatements of Tejas, Vishnu and Abhishek to demonstrate thatthere was no electricity and in fact ambulance and police were 6 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtcalled for. Learned counsel would draw my attention to columnNo.17 of post mortem reports and injury certificates of thevictim. From that, it is submitted that it is uncertain as to whocaused fatal injury at serial No.3 on right side of occipitalregion of head. Remaining injuries are not on the vital part ofthe body and the reason for the death. 7.Additionally, learned counsel Mr. Satej Jadhav appearingfor appellant Mahadeo submits that his client is 65 years oldand absolutely no incriminating role is assigned to him. Theprosecution story is exaggerated one and the allegations arevery vague. He would submit that there are no antecedentsagainst his client. The alleged assault at the place of informantis not the cause of death. He would submit that it was a mobfury which caused the life. It is further submitted thatstatement of Bhupendra Mahadeo Kapare shows that personapprehended by mob Pravin Bhosle had stolen his motorcycleon or about 01.06.2024 and the presence of Pravin Bhosle atthe relevant time is unusual.8.Learned counsel Mr. Khedkar for appellant Uddhavadverts my attention to statement of Sangita Changdeo Chavanwhich does not refer to act of outraging modesty of informant. 7 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odt9.Learned counsel Mr. Andhale for appellants Sandip andGanesh submits that his clients were not present wheninformant and her family members were allegedly assaulted ather hut and dragged to the office of village panchayat. Hetenders on record the voters list to show that there are fivepersons in the village named as Sandip Avhad. He would alsotake the plea of alibi for his client who is taking education atPune. 10.Learned APP Mr. S. M. Ganachari tenders on recordrelevant papers of investigation. He would strongly oppose thesubmissions of the appellants. He would submit thatinformant’s family is the only family of Pardhi community inthe village and targeted by the appellants. Innocent personlost his life as the villagers took law in their hand. It issubmitted that appellant Amol is the Sarpanch who should nothave indulged in the overt act. My attention is invited to thespot panchnama, statements of informant and eye witnessesnamely Ramlal and Pravin. It is submitted that all appellantsare liable because they are present in the mob who assaultedthe victims. It is submitted that post mortem report and theinjury certificates corroborates the prosecution story. He would 8 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtsubmit that additionally statements under Section 164 ofinformant and her son Ramlal strengthen the prosecution case.11.Mr. D. R. Markad appearing for respondent No.2/informant draws my attention to the affidavit-in-reply of hisclient to support the submissions of the appellants. It issubmitted that his client could not identify the persons in thedarkness. It is reiterated that appellant Amol who is theSarpanch helped them in reaching the hospital. It is stated thatshe was not in sound state of mind when report was registered.It is reiterated that his client does not have any grievance if thebail is granted to them. 12.Learned counsel Ms. Sunita Sonawane was permitted toaddress the Court and accordingly affidavit of Pravin Bhosle isfiled on record. He was apprehended under the pretext ofpurported thief and assaulted also. It is submitted that herclient is innocent and on the ground of suspicion, he wasassaulted. She would opposed the appeals and adopt thesubmissions of learned APP. 13.I have considered rival submissions of the parties and Ihave also gone through relevant papers of investigation.Incident took place at night intervening 03.07.2024 to 9 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odt04.07.2024. When appellant Mahadeo, Amol, Uddhav andother villagers had been to the hut of the informant, informantand her family members were assaulted and dragged to theoffice of village panchayat. Already a mob had gathered andthe persons was apprehended at that place. The villagers againassaulted informant, her son, deceased and Pravin Bhosle. 14.First information report and the statements of theinjured Ramlal and Pravin Bhosle do not disclose specific overtact of the appellants. It is not stated by them that eachappellant was holding which weapon. Only few appellantswere identified by informant and Ramlal. The deceased hassustained as many as ten injuries mentioned in column No.17.Out of them, injury No.3 caused on right side of occipitalregion appears to be serious and fatal. But, it is difficult togather as who is author of the injury. Learned counsels for theappellants are therefore justified in contending that firstinformation report and eye witnesses are not specific about theovert act. 15.The place of the informant appears to be in theagricultural land not surrounded by the locality. Spotpanchnama does not show that there was any electricityconnection at the said place. From the said place, the 10 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtinformant and her family members are alleged to have draggedto the office of village panchayat. The statements of witnessesVishnu Trambak Bhagwat (Police Naik), Akshay Rohokale,Abhishek Avhad show that there was no electricity.Respondent No.2 has also reiterated in her affidavit before thisCourt that there was no electricity. At the office of villagepanchayat, further assault took place which in all probabilitieswould have been the cause of the death of the deceased. Therewas no electricity and it was a mob of 40 to 50 persons. Underthese circumstances, it would be difficult to accept thesubmissions of learned APP that appellants are responsible forthe assault and the death.16.Informant, eye witness Ramlal and Pravin Bhosle statedthat police and the ambulance were called by someone andinjured were shifted to the hospital. Informant also stated inher affidavit before this Court in tune with her averments infirst information report that appellant Amol called police andthereafter ambulance was also called. There is no reason todiscard this possibility. If there was only one family of Pardhicommunity in the village and there were consistent incidents oftheft, then villagers could have taken action against the familyof informant. In the wee hours of night and in the darkness, 11 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtout of sheer suspension, a mob attacked the victims in whichChangdeo lost his life is the prima facie impression of thisCourt. Appellants cannot be denied bail.17.Appellant Mahadeo is of 65 years. He is not shown tohave armed with any specific weapon. His mere presence inhut of the informant would not attract serious offence.Prosecution story appears to be exaggerated one, not onlyagainst Mahadeo but against all the appellants. 18.Learned counsel Mr. Khedkar is right in contending thatstatement of Sangita does not refer to overt act of outragingmodesty when incident in question was conveyed to her byinformant on telephone. I am inclined to accept thesubmissions of advocate Mr. Sandip Andhale that names of hisclient Ganesh and Sandip are not figuring in the first overt actat the place of informant. The voters list does indicate thatthere are five persons in the village by name Sandip Avhad. Atthis juncture, no incriminating role can be attributable toappellant Sandip. 19.Appellants are behind bar since last nine months, whichis sufficient incarceration. For the reasons stated above, I findsubstance in their appeals. In my view, Sessions Court 12 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odtoverlooked above aspects of the matter in passing impugnedorder. The appellants are entitled to succeed in the appeals. I,therefore, pass following order :ORDER1.All Criminal Appeals are allowed. 2.Impugned orders rejecting their regular bailpassed by learned Special Judge which are underchallenge in the appeals are quashed and setaside. 3.Appellant Mahadeo Kisan Avhad in CriminalAppeal No.1011 of 2024, appellant UddhavMahadeo Avhad in Criminal Appeal No.77 of2025, appellant Amol Bharat Avhad in CriminalAppeal No.250 of 2025, appellant SandipPandharinath Avhad in Criminal Appeal No.1021of 2024, appellant Ganesh Ambadas Avhad inCriminal Appeal No.1023 of 2024 shall be releasedon bail on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.30,000/-with one solvent surety each of like amount eachin respect of Crime No.542 of 2024, registeredwith M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahmednagarfor offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 13 Cri.Appeal 1011-24 & ors.odt191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 103(2), 118(1),118(2), 115(2), 74, 76, 352, 351(2), 324(4) ofBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) ofScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 37(1),37(3), 135 of Mumbai Police Act, on the followingconditions :(i)Appellants shall co-operate learned SpecialJudge in disposing criminal trial and also co-operate the Investigating Officer. (ii)Appellants shall not tamper or in any waycontact informant, her family members orthe prosecution witnesses. (iii)Appellant Amol Bharat Avhad beingSarpanch of village shall co-ordinate withother appellants and the Investigating Officerfor adhering to the conditions imposed bythis Court and he shall be responsible forbreach of conditions, if there are lapses onhis part. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)...vmk/-