R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16819 of 2020
================================================================
SUJIT DEVISINGH PARDESI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AABAD PONDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by M/S.DARSHAN M
VARANDANI and HARESH H KANTHECHA for the Applicant
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR assisted by MR HK PATEL, APP
for Respondent
MR K S CHANDRANI for the Original Complainant
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 01/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with I-CR No.3 of 2019 registered with Gandhidham Railway Police Station, Kutch for the offence under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is dragged into the offence only on account of his proximity with one Manisha Goswami, who is named as one of the main accused in the crime. The applicant is also dragged into the offence only because of his Page 1 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 some acquaintance with main accused Chabildas Patel. It is submitted that mere proximity or acquaintance in itself cannot be the ground of implicating the applicant in such a serious offence, which is a political murder.
2.1 It is submitted that the prosecution, from the inception, has proceeded with closed mind and in predetermined matter. When the alleged incident of shootout in the train took place, there were two persons in the same compartment who could have been important eyewitnesses, but the prosecution thought it fit to convert this offence only with circumstantial evidence. While submitting so, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant referred to several judgments of the Apex Court to contend that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish chain of evidence so complete so as to arrive at an indefeasible conclusion of guilt and not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. Secondly, it is submitted that the conclusion must exclude every possibility hypothesis accepting one to be proved. With this principle, the evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency in this case lacks on both the principles and therefore, benefit should definitely go to the applicant. 2.2 It is submitted that entire chronology if to be seen closely then there are two parts of incident, first part being political rivalry between accused Chabildas Patel and deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, which had resulted into mudslinging Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 against each other and Chabildas Patel successfully implicating deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali in serious offence like rape with aid of co-accused Manisha Goswami. Deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali also initiated proceedings for registration of false FIR of serious nature against him which involved co-accused Manisha Goswami, leading to her arrest and ultimately these cross cases came to en end by compromise between both the sides, resulting into quashing petition bringing an end to prosecution on the basis of compromise. It is submitted that the proximity of the applicant with Manisha Goswami and Chabildas Patel was only to the extent of settling these matters and thereafter, the applicant had no business or connection with co-accused persons. The next stage of the offence is with regard to murder and as is the case of the prosecution, triggering point for initiating conspiracy was when an FIR came to be registered at Dwarka at New Delhi, wherein allegedly false allegations of rape were foisted against accused Chabildas Patel and Chabildas Patel, believing that the person behind such registration of case at Dwarka would be his political rival, viz. deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, hatched conspiracy for contract killing. However, there is nothing with the prosecution to indicate that in that second stage, the applicant was in any way involved.
2.3 It is submitted that the only circumstance against the applicant cited by the prosecution in evidence is couple of air Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 tickets to Delhi, couple of air tickets for travel to and from Ranchi and Ahmedabad and couple of photographs showing the applicant along with co-accused persons near a temple. This in itself cannot be treated to be an evidence even at the prima facie stage. The theory of the prosecution that the applicant is involved in this conspiracy on the basis of sharp shooter belonging to the native of the applicant is also not an evidence sufficient to draw that the applicant has played any role in the offence.
2.4 It is submitted that this Court has released several co- accused who have also played role similar to what is sought to be alleged against the applicant. It is submitted that those co- accused, who had provided shelter for the accused-sharp shooters to reside, who provided them with the vehicle to travel and to do racy, have been enlarged by the Court, whereas the applicant is not shown to have played any direct role except for being with Manisha Goswami and meeting other co-accused persons.
2.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has tried to elaborately explain the reason for travelling with Manisha Goswami to Delhi and with other co-accused to Ranchi, stating that the purpose of travel was only to settle the issues between Chabildas Patel and deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, insofar as their involvement in offence of rape registered by various girls purportedly at the behest of Manisha Goswami.
Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 2.6 It is submitted that the applicant, had, in fact, no
reason to do away with deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali as the dispute between accused Chabildas Patel and deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, insofar as they being respectively implicated in offence under Section 376 had turned out to become a milking cow for the applicant. Therefore, no motive can be attributed to the applicant for doing away with a person from whom the applicant was receiving money along with Manisha Goswami in trying to resolve and settling the complaints for rape by various girls against each other.
2.7 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that there are two individuals, viz. Ajitnath Kamble and Sachin Adgade, who were also having circumstance identical to the applicant, but still the prosecution thought it fit to treat the applicant as accused, but treated the aforesaid two persons as witnesses.
2.8 It is submitted that the investigating agency is citing the fact of the applicant being absconded for a long period as a circumstance. But, according to learned Advocate for the applicant, such absconding of the applicant in itself cannot be treated to be a circumstance sufficient to implicate the applicant in a serious offence.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor at the outset submitted that this Court in the matter of another accused, viz. Jayantilal Thakkar, who also is a co-conspirator, having similar evidence against him as the present applicant, denied bail to him with a reasoned order and the said accused had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3144 of 2021 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had dismissed the said SLP by order dated 27.04.2021, not interfering with the impugned order of this Court. 3.1 It is submitted that the applicant was in the thick of conspiracy and there are enough circumstances to indicate his involvement in such conspiracy. The applicant has been named from the initial stage, i.e. registration of the FIR and there are evidenced recorded of the witnesses. It is submitted that in the form of evidence about proximity with Manisha Goswami and co- accused Jayantilal Thakkar, there are evidences to indicate the applicant having visited jail where Manisha Goswami was lodged along with accused Chabil Patel and Jayantilal Thakkar. There is also evidence of the applicant being part of the group which had met at Mumbai in the office owned by the co-accused and panchnama of CCTV footage would indicate presence of the applicant in that meeting. The meeting was of priximate period and would make out incident as planned.
3.2 It is submitted that the case of the applicant cannot be Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021
considered on the ground of parity as the orders which are passed granting bail to the co-accused persons, the role of those co- accused persons was restricted to providing for logistics and perhaps without the knowledge of ultimate conspiracy. 3.3 It is submitted that the prosecution also relies upon the photographs which are available on record, which show the applicant in presence of not only main accused Chabildas Patel but also sharp shooters. This in itself is an evidence sufficient to implicate the applicant.
3.4 It is also submitted that statements of witnesses, viz. Ajitnath Kamble and Sachin Adagade have been recorded under Section 164 and they are supporting the case of the case of the prosecution in entirety.
3.5 It is submitted that the role of the applicant can also be ascertained on the basis of CDR, which would indicate that the applicant was in contact on mobile phone with the co-accused persons.
4. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant strongly refuted existence of CDR of the applicant with other co- accused persons, especially with the persons who allegedly committed the offence.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Chandrani for the original Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021
complainant, while adopting the arguments made by learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the applicant is nothing short of a gangster, who perennially indulged into the offence like extortion money, etc. It is submitted that there are several witnesses who have stated in their statements that the applicant was found continuously in company of the co-accused. It is submitted that there is also an evidence to suggest the role of the applicant in locating root for escaping after commission of offence. He was seen with co-accused Manisha Goswami in Bhuj from 3rd January to 5th January, which is evident from statements of witnesses as well as statement of one taxi driver.
5.1 It is submitted that the applicant has association with famous gangs which are operating in Mumbai and Pune. 5.2 It is lastly submitted that considering the fact that co- accused is a political person, as directed by the Supreme Court, to conduct appeals of political persons, especially MPs and MLAs on daily basis, the trial of the applicant will not be delayed any further.
6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the offecne is clearly political murder, where the motive attributed by the prosecution is that the deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali was a leader of Kachchh District BJP in the year 1988. Accused Jayantibhai Thakkar was active in the politics of Kachchh District in Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 Congress Party since 1995, who left the Congress party and joined BJP in the year 1998. Hence the relations between deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali and Jayantibhai Thakkar were good as both of them were doing political work in the same District and Taluka. Accused Jayantibhai Thakkar gained trust of deceased Jayantibhai Bhaunshali due to the service which he rendered during the earthquake which affected Kachchh in the year 2001. In the year 2007, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar and deceased Jayantibhai Bhaunushali have demanded for the ticket in the election of Lagislative Assembly. As the ticket was issued to deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar propagated for Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Jayantibhai Bhanushali won that election. Due to victory on the seat of Legislative Assembly of Abdasa-Kachchh constituency, the relations between both of them became more homely and strong. In the Legislative Assembly Election in the year 2012, deceased Jayanti Bhanushali lost election against accused Chabildas Patel, who was from the Congress party, but in the year 2014, accused Chabildas Patel resigned from Congress party and joined BJP and in the by-election of the year 2014, as accused Chabildas Patel got the ticket from BJP, Jayantibhai Thakker had worked for accused Chabildas Patel. Chhabilbhai Patel lost in this election, hence Jayantibhai Thakkar reported the Party in his letter pad on 10.06.2014 that deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done activity against the party. Due to that reason, Jayantibhai Bhaunshali was displeased with Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 Jayantibhai Thakkar. In the year 2017, Jayantibhai Bhaushali demanded ticket, but Chhabildas Patel was given ticket. This time also, Jayantibhai Thakkar worked for Chhabildas Patel. But Chabildas Patel lost once again. Chabildas Patel thought that he got defeated because deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done the activities against the party. Chabildas Patel thought that his political career has been destroyed by Jayantibhai Bhaunshali, hence he had made-up his mind to end the political carrier of Jayantibhai Bhanushali and was waiting for an opportunity in which there was the consent of Jayantibhai Thakkar also.
7. As per the prosecution, the case against the applicant is that Jayantibhai Thakkar, residing at- Bhuj who was the friend of Chhabilbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Bhaunushali, was not in favor of this compromise. According to him, if this compromise would take place than he could not get the chance to politically defame Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Hence due to this reason he did not let this compromise take place. Jayantibhai Thakkar, as a friend of Jayantibhai Bhanushali persuaded that Manisha Goswami will not create further trouble if she remains in a jail and considering it, Jayantibhai Bhanushali filed other complaints also against Manisha Goswami. Manisha Goswami was arrested for the offence being I- CR.No.97 of 2018 registered at Naroda Police Station under Sections 328, 384 etc. of the Indian Penal Code on 14.06.2018. Manisha Goswami was in Judicial Custody in Sabarmati Jail from Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 14.06.2018 to 03.08.2018. When Manisha Goswami was in jail, Chabildas Patel and Sujit Pardeshi alias Bhau, the other friend of Manisha Goswami and resident of Keshavnagar, Mundhva, Pune, Maharashtra went to meet Manisha Goswami in jail and assured Manisha Goswami of complete help. Chhabil Patel, Sujit Pardeshi @ Bhau and Jayantibhai Thakkar made attempts to take out Manisha from the cases which were filed against her by Jayantibhai Bhanushali. As per their guidelines, a lady namely Nidhi Barvaliya filed a complaint of illegal acts against Jayantibhai Bhanushali in Sarthana Police Station-Surat City, on 10.07.2018. Deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali came under pressure due to this application filed in Sarthana Police Station, Surat. Chhabildas Patel, Jayantibhai Thakkar and others made great efforts to defame Jayantibhai Bhanushali in news media. Jayantibhai Bhanushali again initiated attempts for settlement. Leaders of Bhanushali community Manji Bhanushali, Bhimji Vador and Chhabil Patel, Sujit Bhau and Jayanti Thakkar for Manisha Goswami participated in the settlement. According to which, Chhabil Patel raised the demand that all the cases against Manisha Goswami should be withdrawn and Jayanti Bhanushali should leave the politics and the same was supported by Jayanti Thakkar also. But Jayantibhai Bhaunshali did not accept it. Hence, finally on the basis of application of Surat, the complaint was lodged against Jayanti Bhanushali vide I-CR no. 247 of 2018 at Sarthana Police Station under Sections 376(2) N, 294(KH), 506(2), 420, 342, 465, 471, 354, 354(A), 354(B) and 365 Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 of the Indian Penal Code. At this point of time, deceased Jayanti Bhanushali was caught in embarrassing situation and hence, he struck compromise. Due to this, Jayantibhai Bhanushali relieved from the above case on 07-08-2018 and Manisha Goswami was also released from the Jail on 03-08-2018. Chhabil Patel and Jayanti Thakkar were still not in the favour of this compromise until Jayanti Bhanushali leaves the politics.
8. It is found during investigation that present applicant - accused Sujit Pardesi @ Bhau had been remaining present for the accused Manisha Goswami in the meetings over the disputes regarding money transactions between the accused Manisha Goswami and deceased Jayanti Bhanushali in April-2018. Manisha Goswami was in the Sabarmati Jain in the year - 2018 for the offence of blackmailing / ransom with the complainant. To get accused Manisha Goswami released from the jail, the present accused in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabilbhai Patel and accused Jayanti Thakkar, identified himself in the Sabarmati Jail as the husband of accused Manisha Goswami and planned a conspiracy to register the complaint of rape against Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali at other place. The present accused, in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabil Patel and Manisha Goswami, with an intention to finish the political career of Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali and to defame him in the society and to compel him to make settlement with accused Manisha Goswami, Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 lodged complaint of rape against late Jayantibhai Bhanushali in Surat Sarthana Police Station. It is found during investigation that the present applicant - accused has made utmost efforts to get accused Manisha released from Jail by coercing the complainant to make settlement. The FIR of rape has been filed against the main accused of this offence - Chhabilbhai Patel in the Delhi Dwarka North Police Station on 16.10.2018. Assuming the role of Jayantibhai Bhanushali against the said FIR, main accused of this offence - Chhabil Patel, Manisha Goswami, Jayanti Thakkar and the present applicant accused decided to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali and planned to hatch the conspiracy of this offence between 20.10.2018 and 30.10.2018. It was decided to kill late Jayantibhai Bhanushali through hired shooters and accordingly, the said accused Manisha Goswami assigned the said work to find hired outsider shooter to the present accused Sujit Pardeshi. Present accused had handed over the said work to his known and subordinate shooter Vishal Kamble and for the same, the present applicant accused called Nikhil Thorat and Vishal Kamble at Bhuj. Accordingly, the accused Manisha Gajjugiri Goswami, Nikhil Thorat and Vishal Nagnath Kamble came to Bhuj together from Vapi on 23/10/2018 in Kutch Express Train No.22955, where meeting was held between all of them. Thus, strong evidences are found implicating the applicant accused in this offence since beginning of the conspiracy of murder. In connection with the murder of Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the present applicant accused had held the Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 meeting on 12/11/2018 of his subordinate shooters Shashikant Kamble, Ashraf Anvar Shiakh, Vishal Nagnath Kamble and Nikhil Thorat with main accused Chhabilbhai Patel at Akvira Devi Temple on Pune - Lonavala Road. It was decided in the said meeting that it is not proper to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Bhuj and the main accused Chhabil Patel has good business connection at Raanchi, Jharkhand and therefore, it was planned to kill him by calling him at Raanchi through trap and it was decided to go at Raanchi, Jharkhand and to do necessary recce for the same. Photographs of the meeting and technical evidences are found during the investigation. Statements under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Aajinath Kamble and Sachin Adaagade were recorded for the same.
9. The present applicant accused and main accused Chhabil Patel were in Delhi on 22/11/2018. During that time, Chhabil Patel made a phone call to Manisha Goswami from his new SIM No. 7304146496 at 07:18:22 am. Chhabil Patel received an SMS from Manisha Goswami. Thus, it has been deduced from technical CDR that the accused persons were in contact with each other in connection with the plan of murder at Ranchi. As per the plan of murdering Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi, the present applicant accused and main accused Chhabilbhai Patel went to Kolkata from Ahmedabad by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-125 at 06:40 hours on 25/11/2018 and went to Ranchi from Kolkata by Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 Indigo Airlins flight No.6E-108 for deciding the place of murder. After doing necessary recce, both the accused persons went to Bangalore from Ranchi by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-108 at 22:10 hours on 26/11/2018 and returned to Ahmedabad from Bangalore by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-6779 at 04:50 hours on 27/11/2018. In the same way, on 29/11/2018, the present applicant accused and main accused Chhabilbhai Patel left from Ahmedabad by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-125 at 06:40 hours in the morning and reached Kolkata at 09:10 hours and from there, leaving by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-344 at 11:35 hours, reached Ranchi at 12:40 hours. Both of them returned to Ahmedabad from Ranchi via Kolkata by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-6918 on 01/12/2018. Thus, it has been transpired from the evidence found during investigation that the present applicant accused had an active participation with the main accused in the recce of executing the murder. As per the pre-plan of trapping and calling Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi on 15/12/2018 and getting him murdered by the shooters, Shashikant Kamble, Ashraf Shaikh, Vishal Kamble etc. - the shooter hired by the present applicant accused stayed in Hotel Paradise at Ranchi from 13/12/2018 to 15/12/2018. In the same way, evidence has been found that accused Manisha Goswami, who trapped Bhanushali stayed in Hotel Shivani International at Ranchi.
10. Accused Manisha Goswami succeeded in calling Jayantibhai Bhanushali to Ranchi on 15/12/2018 by trapping him. Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 Jayantibhai Bhanushali left for Ranchi from Ahmedabad via Delhi by air with his nephew Nitin Bhanushali. But, as accused Manisha Goswami could not be trusted, Jayantibhai returned to Ahmedabad from Delhi and witness Nitin Bhanushali went to Ranchi alone. Therefore, the plan of murder of Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi failed. The fact has clearly been stated in the statement of witness Nitin Bhanushali recorded as per section-164 of Cr.P.C. The applicant accused had called the members of his gang and his co- accused Manisha Goswami to Ahmedabad on 27/12/2018 to recce the roads and make planning to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali while returning to Ahmedabad from Bhuj in the train. In this manner, the applicant accused left for Ahmedabad from Pune - Maharashtra in the Volkswagen Vento car of accused Manisha Goswami at around 1:30 o'clock in the night of 27/12/18 along with his accomplice Nikhil Thorat and shooter Shashikant Kamble. They reached Hanshpura Naroda area of Ahmedabad at around quarter to ten o'clock in morning. Manisha Goswami left for Ahmedabad in a train from the Vapi railway station at around half past eight o'clock in the morning of 27/12/18 and she reached Kalupur Railway Statiom of Ahmedabad at around one o'clock in afternoon. The said fact has been proved from the mobile phone locations of the accused persons. On the next i.e. 28/12/18, the applicant, Manisha Goswami, Nikhil Thorat and shooter Shashikant Kamble went to Sanand Chokadi on S.G. Highway at around 14:00 o'clock in afternoon. Here, the main accused of the offence, Chhabil Patel Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 came to take shooter Shashikant Kamble in his Creta car No - GJ- 01-RN-5198. The shooter Shashikant Kamble and the main accused Chhabil Patel left for the Narayan Farm at Bhuj. In the midway, they took meal at the Ashapura Dhaba Hotel. The bill for the same, the statement of the hotel manager and the slip of the Samkhyali Tall Tax from where the said Creta car had passed, have been attached. In this manner, the accused applicant has played an important role by handing over the shooter to the main accused person and conducting necessary recce to commit the offence. On 08/01/2019, the present applicant - accused, Manisha Gajjugiri Goswami and Nikhil Thorat had stayed at a hotel in Maharashtra. When they came to know that the names of the present applicant - accused and Manisha Goswami were mentioned in the FIR about the murder of Late. Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the accused hid Manisha Goswami's Volkswagen car in a garage of one of his acquainted at Pune and switched his mobile phone off. Thereafter, the accused, Manisha Goswami and Nikhil Thorat, together from Pune, went to Dhulia, Ujjain, Delhi, Amritsar, Haridvar, Hrishikesh, Katara - Jammu, Amritsar, Chitrakut, Banaras and Prayagraj - Uttar Pradesh. They had been on run from one state to another. Though the Hon'ble Court at Bhachau had issued the warrants of accused persons under Section-70 of Cr.P.C., they had remained at large and had been evading arrest for about 300 days from 08/01/2019 to 04/11/2019. The fact is revealed during the investigation that the present applicant - accused and accused Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021 Manisha Goswami had stayed at Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh as husband and wife.
11. It appears that the present applicant - accused is the main gang-leader of the shooters' gang based at Yaravda, Pune. The records of Yaravada Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra speak about his history of serious crimes as well as the crimes of his subordinate shooters - accused persons.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to implicate the applicant in the offence and the role of the applicant in conspiring and identifying the modus in which crime to be committed is also evident. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
13. The Court has perused the judgment of the Sessions Court, wherein the Sessions Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while rejecting the application of the applicant.
14. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 20:18:16 IST 2022