Bombay High Court
Mahadeo Balani Chougule vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C.V. Bhadang
1 appa 969-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 969 OF 2018
SNEHA IN
NITIN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2017
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
Mahadeo Balani Chougule ..Applicant
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2021.08.30
V/s.
18:20:13 +0530
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
----
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary a/w Sudhir Halli for the Applicant.
Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Sagar Tambe i/b Ritesh Thobde for the Complainant.
----
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 30 AUGUST 2021
P.C.
. By this application, the Applicant Mahadeo Chougule
(accused No.8) is seeking suspension of sentence and release on
bail.
2. The Applicant and 13 others were put on trial in Sessions
Case No. 46 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge at Pandharpur for the offence punishable under Section
143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. The
learned Sessions Judge by a Judgment and Order dated 23
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 6
1 appa 969-18.doc
November 2017 has convicted 6 out of 14 accused including the
Applicant under the aforesaid offences. The Applicant has been
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years on each
count under Section 147 and 148 of IPC. For the offence under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, the Applicant has been
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along
with fine.
3. The record discloses that the Applicant and some of the co-
accused had filed Criminal Application No. 1689 of 2017 for
suspension of sentence and bail which was withdrawn before the
learned Single Judge on 09 March 2018. Subsequently, the
Applicant filed the present application, which was rejected by the
Division Bench by order dated 25 June 2019 in view of the
withdrawal of the earlier application. The Applicant had
challenged the said order before the Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 43 of 2021. The Supreme Court by an order dated
25 June 2019 has directed the application to be heard on merits.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and
the learned APP and also the learned counsel for the
complainant. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the
parties, we have gone through the record.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 6
1 appa 969-18.doc
5. The prosecution case as disclosed from the complaint
lodged by Rajkumar Birajdar PW-1 is that on 26 March 2010, he
along with his friend Shrimant Chokhande were proceeding on
bullet motorcycle at about 10.30 a.m. through a square at village
Jangalgi, Taluka Mangalvedha, District Solapur. It is alleged that
at that time, the accused No.1 Mahasiddha and others obstructed
the complainant and accosted him as to why the complainant had
made a complaint about Jal Swaraj Yojana, which was reported in
Daily Pant Nagari. Thereafter, accused Mahasiddha assaulted
Rajkumar by a stick on his head and left hand. The associates of
Mahasiddha, who are the co-accused, assaulted PW-1 Rajkumar
with sword on his left and right hand. On hearing the
commotion, the mother and sister of the complainant came to the
spot. It is alleged that the accused Mahasiddha also assaulted the
mother of the complainant and had snatched golden ornaments
on the person of the mother of complainant along with mobile of
PW-1 Rajkumar.
6. It appears that on the same day, there was yet another
incident at about 11.30 a.m. wherein Somling Birajdar (PW-2)
who is the brother of PW-1 Rajkumar, was assaulted by the
accused in a field at village Boblad, as a result of which, the palms
of both the hands of Somling were chopped from the wrist.
According to the prosecution, there is a counter case registered
against PW-1 Rajkumar and Pw-2 Somling and others for an
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 6
1 appa 969-18.doc
incident which had happened on the same day i.e. 26 March
2010 in which the present Applicant and others (who are the
accused in the counter case) are alleged to have committed the
murder of Siddhanna Chougule, who is the uncle of the present
Applicant. Upon investigation, the present Applicant along with
the co-accused was tried in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2010 while in
the counter case PW-1 and PW-2 and others have been tried in
Sessions Case No. 47 of 2010, in which PW-1 Rajkumar and PW-
2 Somling and others have been convicted under Section 302 of
IPC.
7. We have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. It appears that there were incidents in
succession on 26 March 2010 involving the present Applicants
and others as also in the counter case, the prosecution witnesses
PW-1 and PW-2 and others were tried under Section 302 of IPC
for having intentionally caused the death of Siddhanna
Chougule. The dispute had arisen on account of certain
complaint allegedly made by PW-1 Rajkumar in respect of Jal
Swaraj Yojana, which was reported in Daily Pant Nagari.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant pointed out that in
the counter case, PW-2 Somling has been released on bail by the
Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 08 June 2018 in
Criminal Application 72 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 6
1 appa 969-18.doc
2017. It is submitted that both the incidents although separate
have happened on the same day and when the prosecution
witness PW-2 has been released on bail in an aggravated offence
under Section 302 of IPC, the Applicant who has been convicted
under Section 307 of IPC is entitled to grant of bail.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
circumstances and submissions made and we do find that prima
facie the multiple incidents which have happened on 26 March
2010 are broadly the part of the same transaction in which the
rival groups were involved. Insofar as the present Applicant is
concerned, PW-1 was injured and PW-2 has suffered a grievous
injury of loss of palms of both the hands. In the counter case,
Siddhanna Chougule who is the uncle of the present Applicant
has lost his life. We find that this Appeal being of the year 2017
would take some time to reach the stage of final hearing.
10. On behalf of the Applicant, reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar v/s. State of M.P.1
and Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai and Ors. v/s. State of Gujarat 2
in order to submit, that normally in a case where the
Appellant/accused is sentenced to imprisonment for a term (as
against an imprisonment for life) the Appellant/accused is
entitled to be released on bail, unless there are any exceptional
1 (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 211
2 (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 421
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 6
1 appa 969-18.doc
reasons, requiring the denial of such relief. He submitted that
there are no exceptional reason in the present case.
11. We further find that out of sentence of 10 years, the
Applicant has undergone the imprisonment for close to 4 years
now.
12. Considering the overall circumstances, the following order
is passed:
ORDER
(i) The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded
to the Applicant Mahadeo Balani Chougule is hereby suspended,
pending disposal of the Appeal.
(ii) The Applicant be released on bail on executing a PR
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions
Judge.
(iii) Criminal Application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 6
