Shyam Sahdeo Yatnalkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66.It appears that the Appellant herein is not the mainassailant and was apparently not even present at the time of4Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.doccommission of the crime. He is basically sought to be roped in onaccount of allegation of conspiracy against him stemming out ofelectronic evidence. Considering the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1213 of 2024 Shyam Sahdeo Yatnalkar...AppellantV/SThe State Of Maharashtra And Anr....Respondents__________Adv. Veerdhawal Kakade a/w Mrunal Jadhav for the Appellant. Adv. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the Respondent-State. Adv. Keral Mehta i/b Vikrant Shinde for Respondent No. 2.__________CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.DATED: 3 FEBRUARY, 2025P.C.:
This appeal is filed under the provisions of 14-A of the The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act) challenging the order dated 2ndMarch, 2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Wai rejecting the Application preferred by the Appellant for grant of bail under theprovisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inconnection with Cr. No. 153/2018 registered with Wai Police Stationfor the offences punishable under Section 120B, 302 and 427 r/w. 34of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)(a) and(6) of the SCST Act.1Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.doc2.I have heard Mr. Kakade, learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Talhar, learned APP for the State and Ms. Mehta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the Appellant relies upon the orderdated 18th October, 2024 passed by this Court granting bail in favourof Accused Nos. 3 and 4. He would submit that this Court hasgranted bail in their favour after noticing that the learned SessionsJudge had granted bail to Accused Nos. 6 and 7 on account of delayin conduct of trial. He would submit that the actual assailants arethus released on bail and the Appellant was not even present at thespot when the crime was committed. He would therefore submit thatthe Appellant also deserves to be released on bail on the principle ofparity.
Ms. Talhar, learned APP and Ms. Mehta, learnedCounsel for Respondent No. 2 would oppose the Appeal bysubmitting that the trial in the case has already progressedsubstantially. They would invite my attention to the findingsrecorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge aboutprosecution taking prompt steps in examining the witnesses. They2Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.docwould therefore submit that the Appellant cannot be released onbail only on the ground of delay in conduct of trial.
Perusal of order dated 18th October, 2024 passed by this Court would indicate that this Court has relied upon the orderpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail infavour of Accused Nos. 6 and 7 after noticing that only 20 witnesseswere examined and the prosecution introduced a new list of 20witnesses which was likely to take another 3 to 4 years for theirexamination. This Court held in paragraph No. 6 to 11 of the orderdated 18th October, 2024 as under :6) Thus, on account of liberty secured by Accused Nos.6and 7 to file fresh applications for bail before the learnedJudge, they have been released on bail by the learned SpecialJudge essentially on the ground that they were in custody formore than 6 years and there is no substantial progress in thetrial. The learned Judge has particularly noted the fact thatthe prosecution itself is not sure about the exact number ofwitnesses that it intends to examine.
The learned Judge hasobserved that only 20 witnesses were examined by the timeorder dated 27 September 2024 was passed. The learnedJudge has further recorded that on 28 March 2024 theprosecution submitted list of 20 more witnesses to examine. Inaddition to the list of said 20 witnesses, the prosecution madea vague statement that the said list was provisional and thatthe names of more witnesses could be included in the said list. On these broad factors, the learned Judge has proceeded torelease Accused Nos.6 and 7 on bail.7) Mr. Shinde would complain that the accused areresponsible for delay in the trial and that though the learnedJudge is conducting the trial on day-to-day basis, they aredeliberately delaying the trial by seeking adjournments on one3Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.docpretext or the other. He would further submit that severalprosecution witnesses have turned hostile and he wouldattribute their hostility to bail granted to the accused.8) In my view, the learned Judge who granted bail infavour of Accused Nos.6 and 7 is aware of the exactcircumstances why the trial has not progressed.
No finding isrecorded in the orders dated 27 September 2024 that any ofthe Accused were responsible for delaying the trial. On thecontrary, the findings recorded in the orders dated 27September 2024 would indicate that the prosecution appearsto be responsible for delay in the trial as the prosecution itselfis not sure about the exact number of witnesses that it intendsto examine. These findings are not recorded to blame anyparticular side for the delay in completion of the Trial. Thefindings are recorded only for the purpose of examiningentitlement of the Appellants for being released on bail.9) If Appellants were also to secure similar liberty from this Court along with Accused Nos.6 and 7 and if they had filedfresh applications for bail before the learned Judge, I am sure, the learned Judge would have released even the presentAppellants on bail on par with Accused Nos.6 and 7. There isno dispute to the position that the role that is sought to beascribed to the present Appellants is on par with the roleascribed to Accused Nos.6 and 7.10) In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason whythe Appellants need to be further incarcerated when similarlyplaced Accused Nos.6 and 7 have already been released onbail.
Also of relevance is the fact that when the learnedSpecial Judge released Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail by orderdated 21 October 2022, an unsuccessful attempt was made by Respondent No.2 Complainant to challenge the said orderbefore this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2022.This Court however has rejected the said Criminal Appeal.11) Considering the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, I am of the view that, the Appellants cannot be continuedin incarceration any further. They have already spent morethan 6 years and 4 months in custody. There is no possibilityof the trial being concluded in immediate near future. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the Appellants alsodeserve to be released on bail on par with Accused Nos. 6 & 7.
It appears that the Appellant herein is not the mainassailant and was apparently not even present at the time of4Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.doccommission of the crime. He is basically sought to be roped in onaccount of allegation of conspiracy against him stemming out ofelectronic evidence. Considering the role of the Appellant andapplying the principle of parity, I am of the view that, the presentAppellant also deserves to be enlarged on bail. I accordingly proceedto pass the following order. (i) Order dated 2nd March 2024 passed by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Wai is set aside. (ii)Appellant- Shyam Sahdeo Yatnalkar is released on bailon executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- withone or more sureties in the like amount and on followingconditions :-a) The Appellant shall stay/reside in any place otherthan Satara District and stay out of the Satara District, till further orders and shall visit Satara (Wai) only forthe purpose of attending the Court.b) The Appellant shall provide the details of placewhere he would reside after release on bail to Wai PoliceStation.c)The Appellant shall report to the local policestation at the place of his residence on every Monday tillfurther orders.d)The Appellant shall not leave India without priorpermission of this Court.e)The Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence.f)The Appellant shall not make any attempt toinfluence the witnesses.5Harish 6-APEAL-1213-2024.docg)The Appellant shall attend trial Court regularly onthe date of hearing unless exempted by the Court. 8. With the above directions, the Appeal is allowed anddisposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) 6Harish
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.