Tushar Manoj Bhosale v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 / 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2515 OF 2016 Tushar Manoj Bhosale .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State/Respondent. PSI - Mr.B.S. Gurav (Swargate Police Station, Pune). CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : 01st FEBRUARY, 2017.

P.C. :

1.

This application is moved for bail by the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 302, 307, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R.No.56/15 of Swargate Police Station, Pune. The offence is registered at the instance of Dashrath Laxman Kakade.

2.

The incident of assault took place on 08/03/2015 near Dias Plot, Gultekadi, Pune. The complainant and his maternal

2 / 6 brother Kishor Ravindra Gaikwad, at around 05.00 p.m. were having liquor near irrigation building near a canal. At that time co-accused Pravin Shinde, Mohammad Pitale and the applicant/accused were also having liquor. At around 06.30 p.m. when the complainant and deceased Kishor Gaikwad started going to their houses, they found that these three persons were fighting amongst themselves. Kishor Gaikwad knew them and therefore he intervened and tried to settle their quarrel. At that time co-accused Mohammad Pitale got angry and he called his brother Bablu Pitale. Within 5-7 minutes coaccused Bablu Pitale arrived there in a swift car.

At that time, Mohammad Pitale, Pravind Shinde, the applicant/accused and co-accused Bablu Pitale started abusing and assaulting the complainant and deceased Kishor Gaikwad with kicks and fist blows and stones. The complainant was scared and he ran away and went to his other associates. When they all returned on the spot, they all found that all the four assailants were standing near canal. As they saw complainant and his associates, they went in the car.

3 / 6 Gaikwad. They did not get him and on the next day, dead body of Kishor Gaikwad was found in the canal. Thereafter complainant Dashrath Kakade approached police and initially offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. However, as dead body of Kishor Gaikwad was found, section 302 of IPC was applied. The applicant/accused was arrested on the same day i.e. 09/03/20215. Hence this bail application. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He submitted that the applicant/accused seeks bail on the ground of parity as Bablu Pitale who has played a higher role was released on bail by the order of this Court dated 23/09/2016. He further submitted that the applicant/accused is in the prison since last two years. He argued that he does not have criminal record and his age was 19 years, when the offence was committed and the trial is not likely to commence in near future. So he be released on bail.

4 / 6 4.

The learned prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the role of the applicant/accused is very specifically stated by the witness Sandeep Kakade. He was identified in Test Identification Parade, which was conducted on 24/04/2015. He further submitted that father of the applicant/accused has produced a forged birth certificate in the Court of J.M.F.C. at the time of remand to get the applicant/accused out of the jail and the learned Magistrate had acted upon it and had sent the applicant/accused to remand home. However, it was revealed that he is not a juvenile and therefore he was again sent to the jail. The learned prosecutor further submitted that this is a case of murder and the applicant/accused should not be released on bail. 5.

Considered submissions of the counsel. Perused the FIR, the statement of the Dashrath Kakade, who is an eyewitness, so also statement of other eyewitness Sandeep Kakade and other documents. In the test identification parade Sandeep has identified the applicant/accused. However, the

5 / 6 complainant Dashrath Kakade could not identify the applicant/accused in the test identification parade. The complainant did not take name of the applicant/accused, but has only mentioned that one unknown person was present alongwith Pravin Shinde and Mohammad Pitale.

6.

As per the prosecution case, it was not a premeditated crime and there was a sudden quarrel, which ended in murder. The deceased was assaulted with kicks, blows and stones which were lying there. On query it is mentioned by the prosecution that no criminal case is pending against the applicant/accused. In view of these all facts, circumstances and submissions and also considering that the co-accused Bablu Pitale is also released on bail on 23/09/2016, I grant bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms:

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) The applicant/accused shall be released on bail

6 / 6 upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(iii) the applicant/accused shall not enter in the Pune City except attending the Court dates.

(iv) The applicant/accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and attend the concerned police station as and when called.

(v) The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence or pressurize the complainant.

(vi) The applicant/accused shall not commit any other offence especially offence against the human body when he is in jail.

7. .

The application stands disposed of on above terms. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)