High Court
Legal Reasoning
ba2090.23-3- serious crime. The applicants not only assaulted the informant butalso intervened in the quarrel, wherein the informant sustainedinjuries to his legs. There is evidence of injured witness who wasalso assaulted by the applicants and other eye witnesses. If theapplicants are released on bail, they will certainly pressurize theprosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. 5. Perused the charge sheet, particularly the statements of eyewitnesses. Learned senior advocate for the applicants thoughsubmitted that the clothes on the persons were not stained withblood, however, the blood stained clothes are seized at the instanceof the applicants. The incident took place on account of handingover of the premises given on rent. The death is occurred becauseof serious assault made by the applicants. The involvement of theapplicants in the crime, prima facie, shows that they haveintentionally assaulted three persons. Some of the witnesses havestated different weapons in the hands of the applicants at the time ofassault but evidence of sterling quality is always expected in eachand every trial. It is well settled that the accused is not entitled forbenefit of doubt but accused is entitled for benefit of reasonabledoubt. Needless to mention that reasonable doubt is doubt whichunearths the prosecution case so as to disbelieve its case totally.Only because of deficiency with regard to weapons in the hands ofthe accused and on that ground, it cannot be inferred that the ba2090.23-4- applicants are falsely implicated in the crime. Considering peculiarset of facts, the applicants if released on bail, will certainly pressurizethe prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Therefore,the arguments of learned senior advocate for the applicants cannotbe accepted. As far as the ground of parity is concerned, the role ofthe accused persons who are granted bail are not mentioned in theF.I.R. and the their role is not specified. 6.As far as these applicants are concerned, their names arementioned in the F.I.R. with specific role that they have assaulted bystone and wooden sticks for which Shrikant succumbed to theinjuries. Considering the serious nature of the crime for which the lifeimprisonment can be imposed, the applicants are certainly notentitled for bail as per the law laid down in the cases of DeepakYadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 8 SCC 559,and Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another,(1987) 2 SCC 684. In view of the above reasons, the applicationdeserves to be rejected. 7.However, considering the fact that the applicants are behindbars for more than one year, the trial deserves to be expedited.Hence, the following order:- I) The application is rejected. ba2090.23-5- II)The Trial Court is directed to conduct the trial asexpeditiously as possible and in any case within one yearfrom today. Needless to mention that it is a sessions trialand word “sessions” means once it is started it shall not bestopped till it is concluded.III) The Trial Court is further directed not to grant adjournmentsif it is prayed either on behalf of the prosecution or thedefence unless there is extreme urgency or reasonableground. If the accused are not produced, the Trial Courtmay call the jail authority and escort party and warn themby passing an order accordingly by giving one opportunityto them to produce the accused i.e. under trial prisonerscontinuously. If it is not followed then the Trial Court mayproceed against them as per Chapter X of the Indian PenalCode for contempt of lawful authority etc.. If any accusedwho is on bail is not appearing for trial, then the Trial Courtmay proceed to cancel their bail. If the accused, advocatesfor accused are not cooperating the Court for conductingthe trial as expeditiously as possible, the Trial Court mayimpose heavy costs on the concerned accused.IV) The Trial Court is expected to conduct the trial on day today basis or in any case at least twice or thrice in a week inview of peculiar word “session”. V) If the trial is not concluded within one year from today, theapplicant is at liberty to file application for bail before thetrial Court. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/
Arguments
ba2090.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2090 OF 20231) Santosh Shivram Kolhe2) Vishal Ashok Kolhe3) Vikas @ Vickky Ashok Kolhe VERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra...Advocate for Applicant : Shri R. S. Deshmukh, senior advocate i/bMr. Devang R. Deshmukh, Mr. Vishal Chavan and Ms. RakshandaJaiswal APP for Respondents: Mr. Satish A. Gaikwad ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 30th APRIL, 2024. PER COURT :- 1.This is an application for granting bail under section 439 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) inconnection with crime No. 240 of 2022 registered with Kinwat policestation, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of theI.P.C. Their application with similar prayer below Exh 13 in SessionsCase No. 53 of 2023 came to be rejected by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge-3, Nanded, vide order dated 19.08.2023.2.The informant averred in the report that on 12.12.2022 at about10.30 a.m. when he went to the shop of one Shrikant Kacharlawar,he took him hurriedly to the Bhoigalli of Kinwat city. In front of thehouse of one Santosh Kolhe, he saw that all these applicants and ba2090.23-2- others were assaulting Bandu Kacharlawar by stone and woodensticks. The said Bandu Kacharlawar sustained injuries to his head.Shrikant was convincing them but the applicants were not ready tohear him. They said that how the said Bandu is demanding back thepremises given on rent. That time, applicant No.3 assaulted theinformant by stick. Some peoples gathered there. These applicantsthreatened him, abused him and ran away. Shrikant and Banduwere taken in the hospital and on 27.12.2022 Shrikant succumbed tothe injuries. The report was immediately lodged. 3.Learned senior advocate for the applicants submitted thatthere is variance in the statements of the witnesses and they are notspecific and certain as to which applicants assaulted by whichweapon to the injured and by which injury the injured succumbed.The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The trial will take along period. The further custody of the applicants is not necessary.Leaned senior advocate further pointed out the post mortem report,injury certificate and the statement of the witnesses. Learned senioradvocate submitted that two accused persons are granted bail andthe applicants be released on the ground of parity. He submitted thatthe applicants will not flee away from the trial. It is lastly prayed toallow the application. 4.Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State has strongly opposedthe application and submitted that the applicants are involved in