Bharat @ Pintu Tukaram Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3433 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                 1/4                APEAL-105-2020 (J).doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.02.23
           12:00:42
           +0530
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2020

             Bharat @ Pintu Tukaram Sonawane
             Aged about 24 years, Indian
             Inhabitant Occ: Nil, residing at Indira
             Nagar, Bawada, Tal, Indapur, Dist. Pune.
             Presently lodged at Yerwada Jai.                    ...APPELLANT

                      Versus

             1.        State of Maharashtra
                      Through Inspector Incharge
                      Indapur Police Station.

             2.       Shri. Vilas Kisan Nale
                      Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
                      Occ- Assistant Police Inspector
                      Indapur, Police Station, Dist. Indiapur.

             3.       Ramakant Hari Torne
                      Age- 75 Years,
                      R/at. Bawada, Tal, Indiapur, Dist. Pune.   ...RESPONDENTS
                                                     ...

             Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle, appointed through Legal Aid for appellant.

             Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for State.

             Mr. Shriram S. Chaudhari for respondent no. 3.
                                                 ...

                                            CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                    MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON - 17th FEBRUARY, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON- 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021.

             Bhagyawant Punde
                                           2/4                     APEAL-105-2020 (J).doc




JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

.                  This appeal is filed taking an exception to the order below

Exhibit- 85 in Sessions Case No. 23/2016 pending before the Court of

Sessions, Baramati, Dist. Pune. By impugned order the prayer of the

appellant to release him on regular parole bail has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is

lodged in jail since his arrest. He further submits that the entire prosecution

case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The dead body has been recovered

after a lapse of considerable period from the date of alleged killing of victim

Rasmikant Rajnikant Torne. It is submitted that this Court (Coram:- B.R.

Gavai & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) on 07th June 2018 released the co-accused on

bail, therefore, on the ground of parity the appellant deserves to be released

on bail. It is submitted that there is no possibility of commencement of trial

in the near future, and therefore, on merits as well as on the ground of parity

the appellant deserves to be released on bail.

3. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for Respondent-State

would urge that the appellant is the main accused, an incriminating material

has been recovered at his instance which would connect him with the

Bhagyawant Punde 3/4 APEAL-105-2020 (J).doc

commission of offence. Therefore, his case cannot be compared with the co-

accused. There is possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses and

evidence, in case the appellant is released on bail.

4. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.

With the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP

for State, perused the grounds taken in the appeal memo, annexures thereto

and impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, Baramati, Dist. Pune. It is

true that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence, however, the

appellant appears to be mastermind of the planning the murder and actual

incident. As rightly submitted by the learned APP an incriminating material

has been recovered at the instance of the appellant. Dead body of Rasmikant

Rajnikant Torne has been recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement

of the accused. It appears from the evidence on record that the victim was

killed and thereafter his dead body was buried. The instruments used in

causing disappearance of dead body have been recovered from the possession

of appellant. As already observed from the memorandum statement of the

appellant, whereabouts of dead body have been discovered which directly

connects the appellant with the alleged offence. As rightly submitted by the

learned APP, in case the appellant is released on bail, there is every

possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. It

Bhagyawant Punde 4/4 APEAL-105-2020 (J).doc

prima facie appears that an alleged incident is planned and designed to kill

victim Rasmikant Rajnikant Torne. In that view of the matter, we are unable

to persuade ourselves to accede to the prayer of the appellant to release him

on bail. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

5. The Sessions Court, Baramati, Dist. Pune is directed to expedite

the trial including framing of charge, if already not framed, as expeditiously

as possible, however, within one year from receipt of the copy of this order.

6. The observations made herein above are prima facie in nature

and confined to the adjudication of the present appeal only. The Trial Court

shall not get influenced by the aforesaid observations during the course of

trial.

7. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Advocate

Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, appointed for representing the appellant. We quantify his

fess at Rs. 7500/- to be paid by High Court Legal Services Committee,

Mumbai, within four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.

      ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                  (S. S. SHINDE, J.)



Bhagyawant Punde