Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsale v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 of 15 ABA.1196.2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2017 Shrimant Chh.Udayanraje P. Bhonsale Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra, through Satara City Police Station Vide CR No.231 of 2017 Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.M.S.Mohite i/by Mr.Prabhanjan Gujar for Applicant.

Mr.Ajay Patil, APP, for State.

Mr.Narayan M. Sarangha, Police Inspector, Satara City Police Station, is present.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE :

18th July 2017 PC :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.231 of 2017 registered with Satara City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 307, 384, 385, 386 342, 504, 506 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The first information report (`FIR') was lodged at the instance of Rajivkumar Balkrishna Jain who was working as Manager in Sona Alloys Private Limited situated at MIDC Lonand, Taluka Khandala, District Satara. The FIR was lodged on 22nd March 2017. 2.

The application was listed before the Court having the assignment. However, the said Court has directed that the

2 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 application may not be placed for hearing before the said Court. In view of that, the application is posted for hearing before this Court. 3.

The prosecution case is as follows :

(a) The FIR is lodged at the instance of Rajivkumar Jain. From 25th October 2016, the company viz. Sona Alloys Private Limited was closed for the purpose of maintenance. It was reopened in January-2017. There are permanent as well as contract labourers working in the said company. The contract labourers since two years were not working properly. The company was paying wages to the labourers when the said company was closed. The Applicant is arraigned as accused no.1;

(b) In the month of January, accused no.3 Ranjit Mane compelled the management of said company to reinstate 10 to 15 contract labourers who were removed. In October-2015, the accused no.2 (Ashok Kantilal Sawant) and accused no.3 (Ranjit Amrut Mane) told the complainant that for smooth running of the said company, the complainant will have to pay Rs.2 lakh per month, otherwise they will close the company. The complainant used to intimate the accused no.2 telephonically about payment made to accused no.3. Since few months, the company was in loss and therefore, it could not pay extortion money. In the month of February-2017, the accused no.3 on three occasions made phone calls to the informant and demanded unpaid money. The accused nos.2 and 3 were personal assistants of Applicant;

(c) On 13th March 2017, the complainant received phone

3 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 call from accused no.2 Ashok Sawant who asked the complainant to talk with the Applicant-accused. The Applicant calledthe informant and Asit Jain on 18th March 2017 at Circuit House, at Satara; (d) On 18th March 2017 at 10.30 a.m., the complainant along with other officers of the company A.K.Srivastav, Vasant Rade, Vikas Dhaigude came to the Circuit House, Satara where the accused nos.2 and 3 and 8 to 10 contract labourers were present. The complainant was waiting for the Applicant who came at 2.30 p.m. and went inside the room. After 10 minutes, the complainant and his colleagues were called. The Applicant inquired as to who is the owner of the said company to which complainant replied that he is the owner and thereby the Applicant slapped him. The complainant was frightened.

The Applicant thereafter told him that he has only 15 minutes time, he can talk to his family members. The Applicant asked the accused nos.2 and 3 to bring gun and knife. The Applicant asked him as to whether he will do the work of labourers and again slapped the complainant. The Applicant thereafter instigated the coaccused thereby accused nos.2 and 3 and the above referred labourers caught hold of the complainant. The complainant was thereafter taken to another room where the complainant was assaulted by all of them by fist and kick blows. The complainant requested them not to assault them as he is suffering from high diabetes and blood pressure. However, he was assaulted on chest.

(e) With the help of Mr.Rade, the complainant again came to Circuit House. After taking rest for some time, he went to Pune

4 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 where he informed the incident to his family members, Asit Jain and Rahul Aggarwal. The doctor treated him and inquired as to what has happened. The complainant informed that 10 to 15 persons have assaulted him. The doctor advised him MRI and Citi Scan but the complainant thought that the doctor would inform police and case would be registered and due to fear the complainant returned home. The complainant received phone call from Wanawadi Police Station, but as he was frightened, he informed that he has no complaint; (f) The family members of the complainant, friends, company management gave courage and support to the complainant. However, he was frightened to come to Satara for lodging the FIR. Accordingly the police visited the residence of the complainant and recorded the FIR.

4.

The learned Senior Advocate Shri Mundargi submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime. It is submitted that the Applicant is an elected member of parliament and is representing the Satara Constituency since last seven years. The Applicant is also president of a labour union namely Shivpratap Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union and he strives for the cause of labourers and their welfare. It is submitted that the company viz Sona Alloys Pvt.Ltd. is functioning in Lonand MIDC since last seven years wherein more than 1,500 employees are working on permanent as well as contract basis. Since the couple of years, some disputes were going on between the company and the labourers. At times, the management of company used to indulge into unfair labour practices like keeping the factory close for upto three to four months on the pretext of maintenance. It was also

5 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 closed and lock out was declared on 20th March 2017. The primary demand of labourers was to give them permanency as well as increase their wages as per the statutory guidelines. It is further submitted that on 20th March 2017, the Applicant had addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Satara wherein the Applicant had pointed out the actions of Sona Alloys Company towards the labourers with a request to look into the matter as false cases are lodged only to defeat the agitation. On 22nd March 2017 and 23rd March 2017, news was published in the local newspaper in respect to closure of Sona Alloys and disputes which were going on between the company and the contract labourers and permanent labourers working in the company.

In the said article, it was mentioned that the Applicant had meeting with the said company and had appealed to said company to resolve the dispute since several workers are working in the said company and earning their livelihood. On 22nd March 2017, Shri Ranjit Mane, the Vice President of the Kamgar Union had addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Satara in respect of various demands of the labourers. In the said letter, it was requested to Labour Commissioner to look into the matter and to resolve the dispute between the labourers, the said company and the contractors and to deposit the monthly payment of the labourers directly in account of each labourer. The said letter was addressed with the list of workers/labourers.

It is submitted that the company did not want to pay the salary to the contract labourers and permanent labourers and the management of the company was indulging into unfair trade practice and wanted to dismiss the contract labourers.

5.

Learned counsel for Applicant also relied on letter dated 23rd

6 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 March 2017 written by the Senior Inspector of Police to the Medical Officer calling upon them to furnish the medical case papers about the treatment which was given to the complainant in the said hospital. It is submitted that from the said documents, it is crystal clear that the complainant had not sustained any injury in respect to the alleged assault and he did not disclose to the said hospital authorities that he is being assaulted by some persons and that on account of assault he has sustained any injury. It is, therefore, submitted that the version of the complainant in the first information report is concocted by him to falsely implicate the present Applicant in the crime. The learned counsel then pointed the certificate dated 29th March 2017 issued by Inamdar Multispeciality Hospital.

In the said certificate it was mentioned that the complainant was seen in the casualty department on 18th March 2017 at about 10.30 p.m. at InamdaMultispecialityty Hospital, Pune. He was presented with the history of assault at about 3.30 p.m. on 18th March 2017 at Satara near Circuit House. The patient had severe headache and body pain with small abrasion over left hand dorsal aspect. As per relative of patient, he was unconscious and had even amnesia. Patient was advised for investigation and treatment. But he refused for treatment and investigation. He was then advised to take tablet Enzoflam BD and tablet Rentac 150 mg OD. It is submitted that there is no injury to substantiate the charge under Section 307 of IPC.

6.

It is submitted that the incident took place on 18th March 2016 and the FIR was lodged on 23rd March 2017. There is delay in lodging the FIR which speaks volumes of doubt that the story is concocted by the complainant. The allegations made in the FIR are

7 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 vague. It is submitted that there is union of workers who are working under the leadership of Applicant and also that the applicant is fighting against management for the welfare of workers in the said company and as a counter blast, present FIR is lodged against the Applicant and the same is nothing but an attempt made on behalf of the company to resolve the dispute. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime on account of political rivalry. There is no allegation of extortion against the Applicant nor any instance is mentioned that the Applicant was ever involved in the alleged act. It is submitted that the offence u/s 307 of IPC is not made out as there was no attempt to commit murder of the complainant.

It is submitted that there is no medical evidence to support the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR. There is no allegation that the Applicant had demanded money at any point of time and the charge of extortion cannot be invoked against the Applicant. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required. The other persons to whom the overt act and the role of extortion is attributed, are arrested by the police and they were in custody. It is submitted that the charge of conspiracy is without any basis and there no evidence against the Applicant to have conspired to assault the complainant. It is submitted that the contents of FIR itself falsifies the allegation that the applicant is one of the conspirator in the said crime.

In the FIR it is mentioned that when allegedly the complainant went inside the room, the Applicant inquired as to who is the owner of the company. This shows that the Applicant was not even aware as to who is being called and therefore, the question of having any conspiracy to assault him does not arise. The learned counsel pointed statement of Vilas Kadam, which was recorded on 24th March 2017.

8 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 stated that on 18th March 2017, the said witness was present at the Circuit House since morning. The Applicant was supposed to come to the Circuit House and therefore, about 150 to 200 persons were waiting for him at the Circuit House. It is further stated that the Applicant then visited the Circuit House and he was present at the Circuit House till about 4.30 p.m.. Thereafter the people who came to meet him had also left the said place. The said witness has not referred to any incident of alleged assault in his statement. The learned counsel then pointed the statement of Vikas Dhaigude. The said witness has stated that on 18th March 2017, the meeting was fixed at Circuit House, Satara by the Applicant with the Director of the company Shri Rajivkumar Jain.

The said witness and the complainant had proceeded to the Circuit House. At about 2.30 p.m. the Applicant came to the Circuit House and occupied the room viz. Ajinkya Tara. The other accused Ashok Sawant and Ranjit Mane as well as the other persons were also present at the said place. The said witness has stated that the complainant was taken to Room No.4 for the purpose of assaulting and on account of fear the witness stood aside the Circuit House. The witness has stated that the complainant was taken to Pratibha Hospital, at Satara and thereafter again he was brought to Circuit House and he slapped in Room No.5.

It is submitted that if the complainant was assaulted in the Circuit House and he was frightened on account of said assault, it is difficult to digest that the complainant again returned back to the Circuit House which shows that the contents of FIR are concocted by the complainant. The learned counsel also pointed out the statement of Vinod Paradke which was recorded on 10th February 2017 and Santosh Mahamuni.

9 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 Circuit House. From the said statement, it is apparent that the Applicant was at the Circuit House from 1355 hours and he left Circuit House at 1625 hours. It is also reflected that the complainant was at the Circuit House from 1100 hours and it is also recorded that at about 1230 hours, it is seen that the complainant is being taken away by seven persons. It is submitted that the Applicant was at the Circuit House during the aforesaid time and there is nothing to show that the complainant was being assaulted by the accused. The learned counsel then pointed out the letter dated 23rd March 2017 written by Pratibha Hospital to the Senior Police Inspector attached Shahupuri Police Station, Satara.

In the said letter it is mentioned that on 18th March 2017 at about 1310 hours, the complainant had visited the hospital along with two persons and he was treated in the OPD ward. He had informed the doctors that he has a problem of diabetes and blood pressure. The complainant had also stated that he did not eat anything and therefore his blood pressure and diabetic may be checked up. The doctors then checked up his blood pressure and it was found to be normal. It is further mentioned that the complainant did not make any complaint of assault by any person. The persons accompanying him told the hospital authorities that the complainant will be taken by them to the hospital at Lonand for treatment.

7.

The Applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions vide Application No.136 of 2017. The Sessions Court vide order dated 23rd March 2017 granted ad-interim protection to the Applicant. The application was, however, heard subsequently and by order dated 11th April 2017, after hearing the learned advocate for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor,

10 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 the Sessions Court rejected the said application. 8.

Learned APP strongly opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is evidence to show the involvement of the Applicant in the said crime. It is submitted that the first information report and the statements of witnesses as well as the recordings in CCTV camera installed at the Circle House clearly establishes the case against the Applicant. It is submitted that from the circumstances which are appearing from the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that there was a conspiracy between all the accused to assault the complainant at the Circuit House. It is submitted that the demand of Rs.2 lakh for every month at the instance of Ashok Sawant and Ranjit Mane who are the personal assistants of the Applicant, cannot be segregated as a different incident.

It is part of the entire conspiracy hatched between the Applicant-accused and the other accused. The demand of the amount was made by the said accused in connivance with the Applicant which is apparent from the circumstances. The complainant was threatened by the aforesaid persons and they had demanded the amount of Rs.2 lakh per month from the complainant by stating that if he intends to run the business of the company, then, he will have to part with an amount of Rs.2 lakh per month. In the complaint itself, it is stated that in January-2017 and February-2017, Ranjit Mane had called the complainant and demanded the extortion amount on two to three occasions. The amount could not be paid by the complainant for few months. It is submitted that on 13th March 2017, the personal assistant of Applicant Mr.

Ashok Sawant gave a call to the complainant and informed him that he should speak to the Applicant.

11 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 told him to attend the meeting on 18th March 2017. On 17th March 2017, the accused Ranjit Mane sent a message to the complainant that the meeting is kept at Circuit House at Satara and it was also informed that he has not paid the arrears of the extortion amounts since last few months. The complainant then gave a call to Ashok Sawant and informed him that meeting may be kept at Pune. The said request was made on account of fear of assault at the hands of the accused persons on account of non payment of the extortion amount. However, Ashok Sawant insisted that the complainant has to attend the meeting at Satara as Labour Officer, Collector and Superintendent of Police will be attending the said meeting.

Since the complainant wanted to conduct the business of his company, he agreed to visit to attend the meeting at the Circuit House. Learned APP further submitted that the complainant was slept by the Applicant and he was threatened of dire consequences. The Applicant also told the other person that they should bring rifle and knife. The complainant was threatened by the Applicant and told that he should do the work of labourers. After that, four to five persons took the complainant in another room and he was assaulted by all of them by giving blows on the chest and abdomen of the complainant. In spite of request that the complainant is a diabetic patient and having the ailment of blood pressure, the co-accused assaulted him and he fell unconscious.

It is submitted that the sequence of events can be seen which clearly establish that there was a conspiracy amongst all the accused persons including the Applicant to assault the complainant. The demand of money from the complainant at the instance of the personal assistants of the Applicant clearly shows that the said demands of extortion amounts was made at the instance of the Applicant.

12 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 submitted that the statement of Vilas Mahadev Kadam, Vikas Dhaigude, Vasant Rade, Vinod Paradke and Santosh Mahamuni which were recorded by the investigating machinery during the course of investigation, corroborates the version of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant had returned back to the Circuit House as his vehicle was parked at the said place. It is further submitted that the letters dated 20th March 2017 written by the Applicant to the Superintendent of Police and the Labour Ministers are written subsequently with a view to cover up the acts committed by the Applicant and the other accused and then attempt is being made to show that the Applicant was concerned for the welfare of the labourers. The said letters were written after the incident of assault on the complainant.

It is further submitted that the presence of Applicant and the complainant as well as his associates has been established at the Circuit House from the recordings which are made in the CCTV cameras installed at the Circuit House. It is also recorded that the complainant has been taken to another room by five to seven persons on the date of incident. The CCTV footage therefore, corroborates the version of the complainant that he was called at Circuit House and he was assaulted at the instance of the Applicant-accused and other accused persons. The associates of the complainant has also supported the version of the complainant. All these acts clearly establishes the involvement of the Applicant.

It is submitted that the demand of extortion amount and the subsequent assault, are co-related to each other and therefore, the Applicant is responsible for commission of all the acts for which the offences were registered. 9.

I have perused the contents of the application and the

13 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 documents which are annexed to the application. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP. The first information report clearly attributes the overt act to the Applicant. The complainant has also categorically stated that the personal assistants of the Applicant Shri Ranjit Mane and Ashok Sawant used to demand extortion amount from the complainant for smooth running of his company. The FIR also indicates that the complainant was called at Circuit House and that the Applicant also spoke to him and told him to visit the Circuit House to attend the meeting on 18th March 2017. The incident is corroborated from the statements of the witnesses which were recorded by the investigating authorities.

Apparently the co-accused were demanding the money and they are personal assistants of the Applicant. The incident of assault cannot be read in isolation. It is a continuous act which begins from demand of money by co-accused. The presence of the Applicant and the co-accused has been established at the place of incident by statements of witnesses and CCTV footage. There is prima facie evidence about the involvement of the Applicant in commission of offence. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by the police. The accused had demanded and accepted extortion money of about Rs.24 lakh from the complainant. There is evidence in the form of conversation between the informant Ashok Sawant and Ranjit Mane which is recorded in the mobile.

After registration of FIR, the complainant was threatened by the Applicant on mobile which is also recorded by the informant. There is evidence in the form of CCTV footage installed at Circuit House, Satara as well as the statements of employees at Circuit House also show the presence of complainant and the Applicant at the scene of offence.

14 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 influential person. It is pertinent to note that the offence was registered against twelve accused including the Applicant, out of which nine persons have been arrested. There are specific allegations against the Applicant in the FIR. It appears that the other accused had acted on the directions of the Applicant. The Applicant had slapped the informant twice. He had also asked the co-accused to bring gun and knife. The co-accused assaulted the informant in spite of the knowledge that he is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure. There is a script of conversation between Ranjit Mane, Ashok Sawant and the informant recorded in the mobile of the informant. It pertains to the period commencing from 7th August 2015 to 20th March 2016 which shows that the co-accused had demanded the extortion money.

The last conversation was recorded on 20th March 2016 which shows that for some period, the amount was not paid by the informant. Ashok Sawant and Ranjit Mane were insisting that the informant should clear the dues. Supplementary statement of the informant is recorded in which he has specifically stated that he paid an amount of Rs.24 lakh towards the extortion money. There is prima facie evidence against the accused in the said crime. There is nothing on record to show that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime on account of political rivalry. It is the prosecution case that the complainant was threatened by the Applicant after the registration of the FIR.

The Applicant is an influential person and on account of his supremacy, there was fear in the mind of the informant and therefore he was not willing to come to Satara for meeting. Hence the complainant did not file FIR immediately after the incident. He chose to go to Pune and even did not come to Satara for lodging FIR.

15 of 15 ABA.1196.2017 family members. Considering the same, the apprehension of the Applicant was justifiable. The investigating machinery has recorded the statements of the witnesses and has collected sufficient evidence to show that Applicant is prima facie involved in the said crime for which the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant is not entitled for the relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and, therefore, the application for anticipatory bail is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be rejected. 10.

Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.1196 of 2017 is rejected; (ii) The application stands disposed off.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST