Babalu Vishwas Dengale v. The State Of Maharashtra
Shambhavi N. Shivgan IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Shambhavi N.
Shivgan Date: 2021.03.09 14:42:18 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Bail Application No. 3239 OF 2019 Babalu Vishwas Dengale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ***** Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Mr. Aashish Satpute a/w Mr. Amit Icham a/ w Mr. Piyush Toshnival i/by Mr. Vivek Arote, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for State/ Respondent. Mr. Sanjay Nagargoje, P.S.I., Yavat Police Station, Pune. ***** CORAM :
SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 8 th MARCH, 2021.
PER COURT :
1.
It is to be observed from record, that Swapnil Shelar (deceased) was eliminated over a rivalry, relating to contract of 1/6
extraction of sand from river bed. Brother of deceased reported the incident on 6 th August, 2018, whereupon at 0.22 hrs., the subject crime was registered under Section 302 of IPC, against seven suspects. Admittedly, applicant was not amongst, suspects. However, it may be stated Santosh Jagtap, Sameer Jagtap, Deepak Dandavate, persons whose names were disclosed in the complaint, were released on bail; whereas Anil Mohite has been granted pre-arrest protection. 2.
Investigation shows that on 6 th August, 2018, statements of brother and father of deceased were recorded. But, both did not disclose the name of the applicant, as a suspect in the crime or otherwise. On 8 th August, 2018 statements of wife and uncle of deceased were recorded. These two witnesses claim that they had seen the incident of assault by fve persons. Both had 2/6
disclosed names of three persons i.e. Somnath, Ranjit Wazare and Vishal Mane, but could not identify other two persons, who were armed with sickle and assaulted deceased. The Test Identifcation Parade was held on 3 rd October, 2018 in respect of two unknown persons, however, she could not identify the applicant, but Bapurao Shelar could.
3.
Learned Counsel for applicant would submit that the incident had taken place on 5 th August, 2018 at around 09:00 pm.
The FIR was lodged on 6 th August, 2018 at 0.22 hours by brother of deceased, who had not seen the assault. Admittedly, brother of deceased did not suspect the complicity of applicant. Thus, in the circumstances, assuming wife of the deceased had seen the incident of assault held by three known and two unknown persons, she would have disclosed the incident to brother of the 3/6
deceased, who had lodged the complaint. However, brother simply suspected complicity of seven persons. In fact brother, father, uncle and wife of deceased were living in one house. As such claim of wife and uncle of deceased that they had seen the assault, requires further scrutiny and thus to be kept out of consideration in these proceedings.
4.
Be that as it may, the investigation reveals that, deceased had sufered fractures C.L.W. and crush injuries, but no incised injuries were found on the person of deceased. As against this fact, it is assertion of deceased's wife that that two unknown persons assaulted deceased with sickle. Thus, for this reason, wife's statement requires further scrutiny.
.
That even otherwise, accused persons; Santosh Jagtap, Sameer Jagtap, Anil Mohite, Deepak Dandavate, whose names 4/6
were disclosed in the complainant, have been granted bail. The investigation in the case is over. The applicant is in the custody since August, 2018.
5.
Thus, the evidence prima facie does not disclose the complicity of the applicant in the subject crime. As a result, application is allowed and hence the following order.
O R D E R
(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 720 / 2018 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with local solvent sureties in the like amount; (ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Ofcer twice a month i.e. Second and Fourth Sunday of each month commencing from March, 2021 between 11:00 5/6
am. to 01:00 pm. till the charge is framed;
(iii) The applicant shall furnish his residential address as well as permanent address and contact details to the investigating ofcer within a week;
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
6. Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
7. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and the same shall not in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.) 6/6