Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Shivram Shingade And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 September, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, G. A. Sanap
Digitally signed by
SMITA SMITA JOHNSON
JOHNSON GONSALVES
Date: 2021.09.24
GONSALVES 15:28:03 +0530
sg 1/5 18. ia1934-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1934 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.633 OF 2021
Bhaskar Shivram Shingade and Ors... Applicants/Appellants
(Original Accused in S.C. No.240/2017)
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
(Original Complainant)
....
Mr. Aniket Ujjwal Nikam, a/w. Mr. Aashish I. Satpute, Mr. Piyush
Toshnival, Mr. Vivek Arote and Mr. Amit Icham, for the Applicants.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for State.
....
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2021.
P.C:-
This application has been made for releasing the
Appellants/Applicants on bail. The Appellants have challenged the
judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4
Nashik, dated 23 July 2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has convicted the Appellants for the offence punishable under
1 of 5
sg 2/5 18. ia1934-21.doc
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand each only) and in
default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months.
2. The Additional Sessions Judge found the Appellants guilty
of committing murder of deceased Govind on 22 April 2015. In the
bail application, it is the case of the Appellants that there is no cogent
and concrete evidence to establish the guilt against them. According to
them, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly
considered the evidence. It is further stated that no purpose would be
served by keeping them behind bars for years together during the
pendency of the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants
and the learned APP for the State. We have gone through the record
and proceedings.
4. Shri Aniket Nikam, the learned Advocate for the
Appellants, submitted that the perusal of the evidence in entirety
would show that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC has not
been made out. The learned Advocate pointed out that before the
incident, the deceased Govind had inflicted two blows on the head of
the Appellant Jayram with koyta. The learned Advocate pointed out
2 of 5
sg 3/5 18. ia1934-21.doc
that Jayram and his brothers complained to the father of the deceased
and the father of the deceased had advised them to lodge a report
against the deceased Govind. The learned Advocate submitted that
the report was lodged against the deceased Govind by the accused
Jayram. The learned Advocate, on the basis of the evidence on record,
submitted that the deceased Govind was an aggressor. The learned
Advocate submitted that the alleged incident of assault on the deceased
by the Appellants occurred within 30 minutes from the assault by the
deceased Govind with koyta on the head of Jayram. In the submission
of the learned Advocate for the Appellants, the offence made out in
this case at the most would be the culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. The learned Advocate, in order to substantiate his
submissions, took us through the evidence.
5. The learned APP submitted that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has recorded the reasons in support of his findings. In
the submission of the learned APP, the evidence on record does not
permit at this stage to accept the submissions advanced by learned
Advocate for the Appellants and to enlarge the Appellants on bail.
6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions. We have minutely perused the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge. It can be seen on perusal of the evidence that 30
minutes before the incident, the deceased Govind had inflicted two
3 of 5
sg 4/5 18. ia1934-21.doc
blows on the head of the Appellant Jayram with koyta. It is the case of
the prosecution that the Appellants, thereafter, beat the deceased with
sticks and, as a result of the injuries sustained by him, he died. In the
evidence, P.W.No.1, the father of the deceased, has stated that in the
morning at 6.00 a.m., the Appellant Jayram met him and told him that
the deceased Govind had given him two blows with koyta. It has come
in the evidence of P.W. No. 6 that in the morning at about 5.30 a.m.,
the deceased Govind had assaulted the accused Jayram on head with
koyta under the influence of liquor. It is seen that this aspect has not
been considered by the trial court. In view of the facts and
circumstances and the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate
for the Appellants, we are convinced that this is a fit case to grant bail
to the Appellants. No purpose would be served by keeping the
Appellants behind bars. The hearing of the appeal would take its own
time. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submissions advanced
by the learned Advocate for the Appellants.
7. Hence following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicants by
the Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order
4 of 5
sg 5/5 18. ia1934-21.doc
dated 23 July 2021 in Sessions Case No.240 of 2017 is
hereby suspended.
(iii) The Appellants/Applicants be enlarged on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each and
sureties in the like amount forthwith, if not required in any
other crime.
(iv) The Criminal Application stands disposed of.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
5 of 5
