Sujit Vitthal Sutar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 413 Bom

               Shubhada S Kadam                                    1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2021
                                                 IN
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2016

               Sujit Vitthal Sutar                                   ....Applicant/
                                                               Org.Accused No.4
                   Versus
               The State of Maharashtra                              ....Respondent


               Mr. Sanghraj D. Rupwate i/by Ms. Pooja Thakur, for the Applicant.
               Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP, for the Respondent - State.

                                           CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
                                                   V. G. BISHT, JJ.

                                           DATE     : 8th JANUARY, 2021.
               P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Rupwate, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.

Dedhia, learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. By way of present application, the applicant-original accused

No.4, prayed for his enlargement on bail pending criminal appeal No.228

of 2016. Needless to state that the criminal appeal No. 228 of 2016 is

preferred by the applicant/appellant challenging the judgment and order of

the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.144 of 2011 whereby the present

applicant along with other accused was awarded conviction and sentence

by the Trial Court for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148,

149, 307, 342,302 read with sections 149, 336 read with section 149 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Digitally signed by

Shubhada S.

Shubhada Kadam S. Kadam Date:

2021.01.08 14:10:51 +0530 Shubhada S Kadam 1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

3. The learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to

the material placed on record viz. copy of depositions of the witnesses

and more particularly the orders of the Division Bench dated 5 th April,

2019, 6th August, 2019 and 4th October, 2019 and submitted before this

Court that though there are allegations of active involvement of the

applicant who can said to be similarly circumstanced with accused No.2,

considering the material, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to

allow criminal application No. 925 of 2018. It is also submitted by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there is merely an allegation against

the applicant/appellant that he was armed with fire arms but the material

evidence falls short to establish any active involvement of the applicant in

causing bodily injury to the deceased. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than 10

years and considering the pendency of the appeals, it will take

considerable longer period for hearing of the appeal filed by the present

applicant/appellant. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant, raises the

ground of parity. Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for the State, opposed the

application.

3. On going through the order of the Division Bench dated

5th April, 2019, in criminal application No.925 of 2018, it reveals that the

Division Bench was pleased to observe that the material against the

applicant/original accused No.2- Ravichand @ Raja Madanchand Thakur

Shubhada S Kadam 1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

is in the form of alleged obstruction by the applicant and the testimony of

the injured witness is that two persons opened fire by means of fire arms

and in the cross-examination, the witness accepted that he saw the

accused in the Court of the first time. Thus, the application was allowed

by the Division Bench by its order dated 5th April, 2019.

4. By criminal application No. 1980 of 2018, the original accused

No.7-Nitin Pandurang Vaiti also prayed for his enlargement on bail. While

allowing the criminal application No. 1980 of 2018 by an order dated

6th August, 2019, the Division Bench was pleased to observe that the

accused No.2 who is claimed to have played a more serious role was

released on bail on 5th April, 2019. Ultimately, the application of the

original accused No.7-Nitin Pandurang Vaiti was also allowed and by an

order dated 4th October, 2019, the application for bail preferred by original

accused No.6-Raja @Rajesh Bhalchandar Gavari is also allowed.

5. Now considering the material placed on record, it can safely be

said that the role attributed to the present applicant is more or less similar

to the role attributed to original accused No.2- Ravichand @ Raja

Madanchand Thakur. The Division Bench allowed his application and and

also took into consideration the fact that the applicant had put in more

than 8 years in the prison and there is no likelihood of the appeal being

heard in near future.

Shubhada S Kadam 1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

6. The other grounds raised in the application also needs some

consideration viz. the mother of the applicant is in her advanced age i.e.

70 years of age and ailing and there is no adult member in the family

except the applicant to support and take care of his ailing mother. A

specific statement is made in the application that the applicant is a

bachelor and is residing with is aged mother.

7. The material placed on record further shows that the criminal

application No. 1411 of 2016 submitted at the instance of original accused

No.6 - Raja @ Rajesh Bhalchandar Gavari is allowed by an order dated

4th October, 2019. The allegation against the applicant/ original accused

No.6 - Raja @ Rajesh Bhalchandar Gavari is that he reached the spot

along with accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and he was carrying iron rod. It is

also come in the evidence that the accused No.3 used hammer and

accused Nos. 3 to 6 used iron rods to break the glasses of the Scorpio

Jeep and caused damage to the said jeep, in which, the deceased and

eye-witnesses were travelling.

8. Perusal of the depositions show that the version of some of the

witnesses is in the form of hearsay evidence and they are not the eye-

witness to the actual incident.

9. Considering all the above referred facts, we are of the opinion

that the learned counsel for the applicant has made out a case for

Shubhada S Kadam 1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

allowing the application. Hence, the applicant be released on bail during

the pendency of the present appeal on the following conditions:-

I. The applicant be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with two solvent

sureties in the like amount.

II. The applicant shall undertake that he shall continue to reside at the

address, to be communicated by him during the pendency of the

present proceeding and he shall not leave that address.

III. The applicant shall not contact either complainant or any of the

witnesses or their family members and shall not indulge in any

unlawful activities or business.

IV. The applicant shall report to Airoli Police Station on every 1 st and

15th day of the month and maintain dairy of his attendance duly

countersigned by the Police Station In-charge or Senior Police

Inspector of Airoli Police Station.

V. The terms and conditions of this order shall be complied within

three weeks from today.

VI. Failure to comply with these terms and conditions or to obey the

same shall constitute breach of this order and the Trial Court shall

in the event proceed to take him in custody in accordance with law.

10. The criminal application is, accordingly, allowed and

disposed of.

Shubhada S Kadam 1 IA 08.2021.(group).doc

11. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally

signed copy of this order.

( V. G. BISHT, J.)                             (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)