Bombay High Court
Bhupesh Sushilkumar Shahu vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Kanhan ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 cr.appeal 390.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2020
Bhupesh Sushilkumar Shahu, (In Jail)
Age - 20 years, Occ. Private,
R/o Plot No.92, Mahadev Nagar,
Nr. Nagpure School, Kalamana Mkt.,
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
. . . APPELLANT. .
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Sandeep Pramod Khadse,
Age - 26 years, Occ - Private,
R/o Nr. Shiv Mandir, Satrapur
Kanhan, Tah. Parshioni,
Dist. Nagpur. RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sayyed Nasiruddin Kazi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri T.A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DARED : 12.01.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 12:53:26 :::
2 cr.appeal 390.20.odt
1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") challenging the order dated
15.6.2020 in Misc. Criminal Application No.1269/2020, arising out of
Crime No.4/2020 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered against
the appellant with the allegation that on 6.1.2020 at about 11.00 a.m.
the appellant alongwith other accused assaulted the deceased. The role
attributed to the appellant was that the appellant assaulted the
deceased with stone and cement brick. The appellant was arrested on
7.1.2020. The appellant, therefore, filed Criminal Application
No.1269/2020, which was rejected by the impugned order. The
appellant, therefore, filed the present appeal before this Court. This
Court on 23.6.2020 issued notice to the respondents and directed
release of the appellant on provisional bail, subject to the conditions
stated in the said order.
5. Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent no.1/State, submitted that there is unimpeachable
evidence in the form of eye witnesses against the appellant. There is
sufficient material to convict the appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 12:53:26 :::
3 cr.appeal 390.20.odt
6. Shri Kazi, learned Advocate, who appears for respondent
no.2 submitted that there is strong possibility that the appellant will
tamper the evidence of the prosecution.
7. We have carefully considered the charge-sheet and the
impugned order. The appellant has submitted that there are no criminal
antecedent to discredit of the appellant. It is further submitted that the
appellant is permanent resident of Nagpur and there is no possibility of
the appellant fleeing from justice. The charge-sheet is filed. The
investigation is complete. The prosecution has not pointed out that as
to why custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. The
prosecution has not pointed out that the appellant has misused liberty
granted to him by order dated 23.6.2020. The apprehension expressed
on behalf of the respondent no.2 can be taken care of by imposing
appropriate conditions while confirming the order of grant of
provisional bail. We, therefore, pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 15.06.2020 in Misc. Criminal
Application No.1269/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-11, Nagpur is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order of grant of provisional bail dated 23.06.2020 is
confirmed, subject to the additional conditions stated below:
4 cr.appeal 390.20.odt
a. the accused shall not directly or indirectly influence
witnesses of the prosecution;
b. The learned Sessions Judge shall fix the calendar for
disposal of case of the appellant within 15 days from today.
c. The appellant shall remain present on each and every date
and failure to remain present on single date, will entitle the respondent
no.1 or the respondent no.2 to file appropriate application before this
Court for cancellation of bail.
(iii) The parties shall appear before the Sessions Court on
25.01.2021.
(iv) The Sessions Judge is requested to complete the trial
within three months from today and submit its report to this Court.
(vi) Fees of the Advocate appointed for the respondent no.2 be
paid, as per the Rules.
Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
ambulkar
