Bombay High Court
Deepak Jayrappa Pujari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2021
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
Digitally
signed by
SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA Q PATHAN
Q PATHAN Date: 2-BA-2774-2021.doc
2021.10.04
17:56:02
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2774 OF 2021
Deepak Jayrappa Pujari ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Bhomesh Ramesh Bellam a/w Ms. Anusha Pradhan for the Applicant
Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
FRIDAY, 1st OCTOBER 2021
P.C. :
1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 By this application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail
in connection with C.R. No. 119/2020 registered with the Upnagar Police
Station, Nashik, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
SQ Pathan 1/6
2-BA-2774-2021.doc
3 Perused the papers. According to the prosecution, Prashant
Wagh (deceased) quarreled with his wife-Sanju on 26th February 2020. The
deceased abused her and assaulted her, due to which, Sanju left her house
along with her son on 28th February 2020 at 10:00 a.m. According to the
prosecution, Prashant (deceased) called the applicant and asked whether his
wife and son had come to their house and whether he was hiding them; that
the applicant met Prashant and tried to pacify him and explained to him,
but Prashant refused to listen to him and abused him. According to the
prosecution, the applicant decided to kill him and hence, called accused
No.2-Manoj Shardul over to his house after which, the applicant, the
deceased and accused No.2-Manoj visited a country liquor bar. It is alleged
that all of them left the country liquor bar at 10:30 p.m in the same auto-
rickshaw, in which they had come, after which, the applicant went home
and brought an iron sickle and went to Tulza Bhawani Mata Mandir near
Fernandes Wadi along with the deceased and accused No. 2-Manoj. It is
alleged that thereafter accused No.2-Manoj assaulted the deceased on his
neck and head with the sickle, after which, the applicant took the sickle
from accused No. 2 and assaulted the deceased.
4 The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence i.e. the
evidence of last seen, recovery of sickle and an extra judicial confession
SQ Pathan 2/6
2-BA-2774-2021.doc
made by the applicant to his wife. As far as the evidence of last seen is
concerned, the waiters at the Bar have disclosed about an unknown person
coming with the deceased however, since test identification parade was not
held, the applicant had not been identified. The same is not disputed by the
learned A.P.P
5 As far as extra-judicial confession made by the applicant to his
wife is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment
of this Court in Emperor vs. Ramchandra Shankarshet Uravane1 and on
the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Omprakash vs. State of
Rajasthan2. Having regard to the same, whether the said confession can
be said to be extra-judicial confession or whether it is protected under
Section 122 of the Evidence Act, is a matter, which will be decided by the
trial Court.
5 What is important to note is that the statement of the
applicant's wife was recorded belatedly after almost 2 weeks i.e. on 13 th
March 2020 and the statements of neighbours were recorded after more
than 2 months, in which they have stated that the applicant was last seen
with the deceased.
1 AIR 1933 Bom. 153
2 1985 (2) WLN 592
SQ Pathan 3/6
2-BA-2774-2021.doc
6 As far as the circumstances of recovery of sickle at the instance
of the applicant is concerned, from the perusal of the panchanama, it
appears that the said sickle was not blood-stained.
7 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased
had certain antecedents and as such the possibility of somebody else
assaulting the deceased, could not be ruled out. Learned counsel relied on
the statements of the deceased's mother with respect to the antecedents of
the deceased and the treatment meted out by the deceased to his wife. It
appears that the deceased was a history-sheeter and was involved in the
business of illicit trading of drugs. These are the only circumstances as
against the applicant. The applicant has no antecedents.
8 Considering the aforesaid, the applicant has made out a prima
facie case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the
applicant is enlarged on bail, on the following terms and conditions :
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond
in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like
amount;
SQ Pathan 4/6
2-BA-2774-2021.doc
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station
on the first and the third Saturday of every month between 10:00 a.m.
to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of trial;
(iii) The applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and mobile contact number immediately after being
released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating
Officer of the concerned Police Station;
(iv) The applicant to cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and attend the trial Court on all dates, unless exempted;
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any
person concerned with the case;
(vi) The applicant shall file an undertaking with regard to
clauses (ii) to (v) in the trial Court, within two weeks of his release;
(vii) If there is breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the applicant's
bail.
SQ Pathan 5/6
2-BA-2774-2021.doc
9 The application is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
10 It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima
facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
11 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
SQ Pathan 6/6
