Bombay High Court
Shivaji S/O. Shyamrao Gundale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 August, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 Cri.Appln. 3221/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3221 OF 2017.
Shivaji Shyamrao Gundale ..... Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent
......
Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicant
Mrs. R.P. Gour A.P.P for respondent -State
......
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 16th AUGUST, 2017
.....
PER COURT :
This is an application for getting release on bail in
connection with Crime bearing No. 15 of 2017, registered at Palam
Police Station, District Parbhani. The earlier application with similar
prayer below Exh.13 in S.T. No. 14 of 2017 came to be rejected by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, by order dated 14-06-
2017.
2] Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as
follows :-
On the basis of complaint lodged by one Satish Dnynoba Bhande
dated 23.01.2017, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. It has
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:54 :::
2 Cri.Appln. 3221/2017
been alleged in the complaint that, deceased Dnyanoba, who
happened to be father of the complainant, had given his crane to the
present applicant on rent. Further deceased Dnyanoba had also given
certain amount to the applicant as hand loan for the purpose of
marriage of his daughter. However, the applicant has not repaid the
said loan amount nor paid the amount of rent. Deceased Dnyanoba
was demanding the said amount repeatedly. On 10-01-2017
deceased Dnyanoba had been to the applicant and co-accused
Vinayak for demanding the money. However, present applicant and
his brother in law i.e. co-accused Vinayak had given threat to kill
deceased Dnyanoba. On 16-01-2017 deceased Dnyanoba again
went to village Aadgaon for demanding the said amount from the
applicant. However, he did not return. On 21-01-2017 at about 8.30
a.m. cousin brother of the complainant informed to him on phone that
dead body of deceased Dnyanoba was found floating on the water in
the well in the agricultural field owned by the applicant. It has been
alleged in the complaint that, on account of the said rent of the crane
and hand loan, present applicant along with brother-in-law i.e. co-
accused Vinayak and other co-accused persons invited deceased
Dnyanoba in the field of applicant for drink's party and thereafter
committed his murder and thrown his dead body in the well owned by
the present applicant. Hence, present crime has been registered and
applicant was arrested on 24-01-2017. Hence the application.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:54 :::
3 Cri.Appln. 3221/2017
3] The Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
prosecution case is entirely rest upon circumstantial evidence. There
is no direct evidence in this case. There is no chain of circumstantial
evidence, except circumstance that dead body of the deceased
Dnyanoba was found in the well situated at agricultural field owned by
the applicant. There is no connecting evidence as such. The learned
Counsel submits that during the course of the investigation,
statements of certain witnesses shown to have been recorded
belatedly, who have lastly seen the deceased in the company of the
present applicant and other co-accused persons. The learned Counsel
further submits that, on the same set of allegations and lastly seen
theory, co-accused came to be released on bail. The learned Counsel
submits that during the course of the investigation, weapon knife
shown to have been recovered at the instance of co-accused
Dnyanoba however, he is also released on bail. At the instance of the
present applicant, certain sticks and sickle shown to have been
recovered. However, there is no further connecting evidence that
those weapons are used in the alleged crime.
4] The Learned A.P.P submits that there is prima facie
strong evidence about homicidal death of deceased and his dead
body was found floating on the water in well situated in the
agricultural field owned by the present applicant. There are certain
witnesses who have stated that they have lastly seen deceased
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:54 :::
4 Cri.Appln. 3221/2017
Dnyanoba in the company of present applicant and other co-accused
persons. There is chain of circumstantial evidence and thus the
application for getting release on bail is liable to be rejected.
5] On perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that
though on 21st January 2017, the complainant came to know that dead
body of his father found floating on the water in the well situated in
the agricultural field of the present applicant, the complaint was filed
on 23.01.2017. On perusal of postmortem notes, in column No.17
near about eleven antemortem injuries are mentioned and the
provisional cause of death is shown as death due to pay-trauma .
However, the age of the injuries and the time of death is also not
mentioned in the postmortem. So far as the last seen theory is
concerned, certain witnesses have stated before the the I.O. that they
have lastly seen deceased in the company of present applicant and
other co-accused on 18.01.2017. However, on the same set of
allegations, co-accused came to be released on bail by the Court
below. In view of the above and for the reasons that entire
prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
I. Application is hereby allowed.
II. Applicant Shivaji Shyamrao Gundale be released on bail in
connection with crime No. 15 of 2017 registered at Palam
Police Station, Dist. Parbhani, on his furnishing personal
5 Cri.Appln. 3221/2017
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount on the following conditions :-
A) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.
B) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m to
11.00 a.m for a period of three months from the date of this
order.
C) Bail before the lower Court.
III. Application, accordingly, disposed of.
[V.K.JADHAV, J.]
YSK/
