The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Bharti Dange while granting anticipatory bail to a man, said that only because the case is of murder does not mean that an accused must be interrogated under police custody. The court thus granted the accused anticipatory bail. (Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. The State of Maharashtra)
The bench remarked, “Merely because the offence involved is under section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code, it is not imperative for his custodial interrogation and an apprehension of the applicant that, he has reason to believe that he may be arrested, is sufficient to invoke the provision of section 438 (grant of bail to person apprehending arrest), of Criminal Procedure Code.”
Facts of the case
According to the complaint filed by Manojkumar Dubey on May 20, 2019, he learned that his brother Sanjay was assaulted with swords and hockey sticks near the local temple. He had rushed to the spot immediately which is when he learned that Santosh Mane and three others had assaulted Sanjay. He further claimed that his brother had spoken about prevailing enmity between the group and how the police wasn't acting against Mane in the previous cases.
Mane, approached the Bombay HC seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground of completion of investigation, the charge-sheet having being filed against the co-accused and a limited role of conspiracy having being attributed to him.
Courts Observation and order
The bench at the very outset observed, “In the supplementary charge-sheet, which is fled, no exact role has been attributed to the applicant. It is not the case of the prosecution that he was present on the spot. The CDR compiled in the charge-sheet only establish communication between Imran and other accused persons and there is no material against the applicant, except the statement and one previous mistaken assault in respect of which, the Police Inspector has already verifed his plea of alibi.”
The bench taking note of the facts of the case, “Since the material in the charge-sheet falls short of establishing a connect between the applicant and death of Sanjay @ Babloo, who was assaulted by the three assailants and the prosecution accused the applicant of the conspiracy, which in no way has surfaced from the charge-sheet fled against the co-accused, the applicant deserves protection from arrest. He shall report to the police station and depending upon the outcome of the investigation, it would be decided, whether his custodial interrogation is necessary or not.”
The bench listing the application to be heard on 17/10/2022 remarked, “ Merely because the offence involved is under Section 302 of IPC, it is not imperative for his custodial interrogation and an apprehension of the applicant that, ‘he has reason to believe that he may be arrested’, is suffcient to invoke the provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and considering the fact that the incident had taken place some three years back and the material compiled in the charge-sheet against other accused refects a limited role to the applicant, at this stage, he deserves protection from arrest.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
