Bombay High Court
Nitesh Narayan Rane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 2022
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
3 aba 2-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2022
SNEHA
NITIN Nitesh Narayan Rane and Anr. ..Applicants
CHAVAN V/s.
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
CHAVAN
Date: 2022.01.17
19:29:26 +0530 WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2022
Manish Prakash Dalvi ..Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
----
Mr. Niteen Pradhan, Senior Counsel i/b Shubhada Khot for the
Applicants in ABA/2/2022.
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Lokesh Zade and Vishnu
Chavan for the Applicant in ABA/51/2022.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbole, Spl.PP with Bhushan Salvi and Y.Y. Dabke
for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Vikas Patil Shirgaonkar for the intervenor.
PI Sachin Houndalekar, attached to Kankavli Police Station
present.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
RESERVED ON : 13 JANUARY 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JANUARY 2022
(Through Video Conferencing)
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
P.C.:
1. Both these applications, seeking anticipatory bail,
arise out of Crime No. 387/2021 Police Station Kankavali,
District Sindhudurga under Section 307, 120-B r/w Section 34
of Indian Penal Code (IPC). As such they are being disposed of
by this common order.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
applications may be stated thus:
The Applicant No. 1 Nitesh Rane (ABA No.
2/2021) is a sitting MLA in the State from Kankavali
Constituency, being elected in the year 2014 and then in 2019
on the ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in
opposition in the State of Maharashtra. The Applicant No. 2
Sandesh @ Gotya Sawant is said to be a close associate of
Applicant No.1. The Applicant Manish Dalvi (ABA No.
51/2022) is a elected Director and the Chairman of
Sindhudurga District Central Cooperative Bank ('the said Bank'
for short).
3. On 23 December 2021, there was an incident of
'catcall lampooning', during a protest by the opposition outside
Assembly during the Assembly Session involving the Applicant
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
No.1, which according to the Applicants did not go well with
Shiv Sena, the Ruling coalition Party in the State.
4. Secondly, the elections to the said Bank were
scheduled to be held on 30 December 2021 in which Applicant
Manish Dalvi was a contesting candidate and the Applicant
Nitesh Rane was the Campaigner in the said election for Manish
Dalvi and against the rival candidates of the ruling coalition
parties in the State. Broadly, these are the reasons according to
the applicants for their false implication, in the case apart from
general political rivalry.
5. The aforesaid offence is registered on the complaint
lodged by Santosh Manohar Parab resident of Kankavali, who is
a contractor by profession and a member of the ruling Coalition
party in the State. According to the informant, on 18 December
2021 at about 11 am, when he was returning home by his
motorcycle, he was hit by a car from behind, near Shital Chinese
Centre, Kanedi Road at Kankavali, as a result of which, he fell
down and the motorcycle falling on his person. He claims that
he was dragged to a distance of about 15 ft, because of which, he
sustained injuries to his right hand. He noticed that he was hit
by a silver colour Innova car, without any registration number.
One unidentified person alighted from the car, while the driver
was sitting at the wheels. The said person accosted him as to
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
whether he (the informant) is working for Mr. Satish Sawant.
Saying so, the said person took out a knife (which is found to be
a paper cutter) and assaulted the informant on the right side of
the chest, because of which he sustained an injury. The said
unidentified assailant is alleged to have said to himself that the
incident should be informed to Gotya Sawant and Nitesh Rane.
He then made a call to someone and then fled in the car. The
informant has given the description of the said unidentified
person and clothes worn. The informant was carried to the Sub-
District hospital. The police was informed about the incident by
an anonymous caller. The Investigating Officer visited the
hospital, where the statement of the informant was recorded
after obtaining endorsement about fitness, from the medical
officer. Accordingly, an offence was registered against
unidentified accused.
6. The innova car, matching the description was
intercepted near Fonda Checkpost. The car was bearing No.
MH-14-DX-8326, which was seized. During the course of the
investigation, the accused Chetan Pawar(A1), Karan Balasaheb
Kamble(A2), Anil Nakka(A3)and Karan Dattu Kamble(A4) all
residents of Pune came to be arrested on 18 December 2021 at
about 21.47 Hrs. The Police Custody Remand of the said
Accused was obtained. On 20 December 2021 in the remand
application, one more accused Dipak Namdeo Waghode(A5)
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
was shown to be arrested and one Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli
Digambar Devnoor(WA3) and Dheeraj Jadhao (WA4)were
shown to be wanted in the crime. In the remand application, on
23 December 2021, it was stated that two vehicles ( being the
Innova Car and a Maruti Swift Desire Car) were seized apart
from the mobiles of the arrested accused.
7. It appears that a notice under section 160 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) was issued to
the Applicants Nitesh Rane and Gotya Sawant. They
accordingly attended the police Station. Their statements were
recorded on 24 December 2021 and they were allowed to go.
On 26 December 2021, one more accused Sachin Satpute (A6)
was arrested at Delhi. On 28 December 2021, for the first time
the Applicants Nitesh Rane and Sandesh @ Gotya Sawant were
shown to be wanted accused in connection with the
investigation of the said crime, alongwith Dnyaneshwar @
Mauli Devnoor and Dhiraj Jadhao.
8. In short according to the prosecution, the conspiracy
was hatched in which Sachin Satpute (A6) was entrusted "to
assault and criminally intimidate the complainant/injured".
Sachin Satpute (A6) with the help of Dhiraj Jadhao (who is
stated to be bodyguard of Sachin Satpute) and accused
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli has given effect to the object of the
conspiracy by hiring the other accused.
9. The learned Sessions Judge has refused to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants by order dated 30 December
2021 on the ground that "custodial investigation of the
Applicants is called for to recover Vanity Van, mobiles and for
confrontation of the Applicants with the arrested accused".
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have
gone through the record.
11. It is submitted by Shri. Niteen Pradhan, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Applicants in ABA No. 2/2022, that the
prosecution story of the assailant saying (after the assault) that it
is necessary to inform Gotya Sawant and Nilesh Rane is highly
improbable and smacks of concoction. It is submitted that in a
conspiracy the members, would tend to hide the identity and not
openly try to disclose the same, that too in the presence of the
informant/injured.
12. It is submitted that Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was
introduced with the object of protecting persons from
unjustified arrests, based on malicious prosecution out of
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
political vendetta. It is submitted that this is a classic case of the
Applicants being roped in a false and frivolous case mainly on
account of the annoyance due to the 'catcall lampooning' and to
prevent the Applicants and others from effectively contesting the
elections to the said Bank. It is submitted that the prosecution
case of the conspiracy being hatched between the Applicants and
the accused No. 6 in a Vanity Van more than three months prior
to the incident is unacceptable. It is submitted that the there is
no material collected to show the complicity or the involvement
of the Applicants in the said offence. It is submitted that on 24
December 2021, the Investigating Officer has not asked the
Applicants to produce the mobile phone. It is submitted that
Applicant No.1 on 5 January 2022 has written to the
Investigating Officer informing about the mobile numbers used
and asking him the details which are required. It is submitted
that there is no response to the said letter. It is submitted that the
first informant, at the behest of the political rivals of the
Applicants, is trying to gain out of an incident, which could be a
mere accident. It is submitted that a member of the ruling
coalition in the State had felicitated the informant on 26
December 2021 for showing 'extraordinary courage and
sacrifice', in naming the Applicants. It is submitted that on 25
December 2021, the local MLA had staged a Dharna at the
Kankavali Police station putting pressure on the police. It is
submitted that in the FIR, there is no reason shown for the
Sneha Chavan page 7 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
belated lodging of the FIR. It is pointed out that the informant is
shown to have suffered simple injuries and the offence under
section 307 IPC is not made out.
13. It is submitted that in the absence of any prima facie
evidence to show the involvement of the Applicants in the
offence, the antecedents are not relevant. It is submitted that the
cases are mostly arising of political agitations. It is submitted that
so far as the Dadar incident of the Railway police, is concerned,
it is not mentioned in the reply.
14. On behalf of the Applicants reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar V/s State of
UP and Ors.1, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of
Maharashtra and Ors2. and Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. V/s State
(NCT of Delhi) and another3.
15. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Applicant, Manish Dalvi has submitted that a notice under
section 160 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the Applicant on 27
December 2021. He submitted that in view of the registration of
the offence and apprehending arrest, the Applicants approached
the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. The learned Senior
counsel pointed out the reply filed by the prosecution on 28
1 (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260
2 (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694
3 (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1
Sneha Chavan page 8 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
December 2021, before the learned Sessions Judge, in which
vide para 10, the Applicant is referred to as a witness. It is
submitted that the only material according to the Investigating
Officer against the Applicant is that the Applicant Manish Dalvi
made one call each to Sachin Satpute and one Sharad Dokale
(who is not an accused in the case) and four calls to Rakesh
Parab, who is the Personal Assistant of the Applicant Nitesh
Rane and his location on the day of the incident which is shown
to be near the Railway station. It is submitted that the Applicant
is not shown as a wanted accused in the case. His name does not
figure in the FIR. It is submitted that the calls between the party
workers is a routine matter and cannot be linked to any
conspiracy. Insofar as location is concerned, it is submitted that
the party workers had gone to meet the party leader, who is a
Central Minister, whose residence is in the same area near
railway station. It is submitted that the cases against the
Applicant were out of political agitations and the applicant has
been acquitted of all the offences after a regular trial on contest.
He, therefore, submitted that the Applicant be granted pre-arrest
bail subject to conditions as may be deemed just and necessary.
16. Mr. Pasbola, the learned Special PP submitted that
the incident in this case is much prior to the 'catcall' incident, as
well as the election of the said Bank. It is submitted that the
Applicants Nitesh Rane and Sandesh Sawant were called on 24
Sneha Chavan page 9 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
December 2021 on which date their statements were recorded,
which is after the catcall incident and the declaration of election
to the said Bank. It is submitted that, had the prosecution been
motivated on account of this, as claimed on behalf of the
applicants, the applicants could not have been let off after their
statement on 24 December 2021. It is submitted that it was only
after the arrest of Sachin Satpute (A6) on 26 December 2021
that the conspiracy angle clearly surfaced requiring the custody
of the Applicants for further investigation. It is submitted that in
a test identification parade(TI Parade), the informant has
identified the assailants. It is submitted that the Call Data
Record (CDR) shows that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in contact
with Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Devnoor (WA-3) and Dhiraj
Jadhao (WA-4) who were in contact with Sachin Satpute (A6). It
is submitted that Sachin Satpute was in contact with the
Applicant Nitesh Rane which is sufficient to spell out
conspiracy. It is submitted that by the very nature of it, direct
evidence of conspiracy is seldom available.
17. The learned Spl. PP has submitted that it has
transpired in the investigation on interrogation of accused
Sachin Satpute that the conspiracy was hatched on 28 August
2021 at Kankavali in the presence of Dheeraj Jadhao and the
Applicant Nitesh Rane, as the injured Santosh Parab was
spreading rumors leading to misunderstanding about Rane
Sneha Chavan page 10 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
Family. The learned counsel has submitted that the investigation
has revealed that Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli had sent the
photograph of the informant to accused Karan Kamble (A2) in
the morning on the day of incident. It is submitted that Dhiraj
Jadhao had visited Kankavali on multiple occasions. It is
submitted that close associates of the Applicant Nitesh Rane are
found to have complicity in the incident and the role of the
Applicants including transfer/payment of money, if any, needs to
be investigated inasmuch as the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused
Sachin Satpute and Dheeraj Jadhao who are from Pune were
engaged for the purpose. It is submitted that there are criminal
antecedents against the Applicants. It is submitted that the
Applicant Nitesh Rane is facing prosecution in five cases
including one with Railway Police station Dadar and the
Applicant Sandesh @ Gotya Sawant is facing prosecution in
twenty six cases including under Section 307 of IPC. It is
submitted that the Applicants are influential and there is
possibility of misuse of the liberty and interference in the
investigation if protection is granted. The learned Spl. PP has
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State
(CBI) V/s Anil Sharma4 in order to submit that "custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented". Further
reliance is placed on Harjit Singh V/s Inderpreet Singh,5 State of
MP V/s Bimal Krishna Kundu and another 6 and Ash
4 (1997) 7 SCC 187
5 AIR 2021 SC 4017
6 (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 104
Sneha Chavan page 11 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
Mohammad V/s Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Baby and another 7. It
is submitted that the question of imposing appropriate
conditions can arise only after the Applicants are otherwise
found to be entitled for protection.
18. The learned counsel for the informant-intervenor
has opposed the applications on similar grounds.
19. In rejoinder, it is submitted by Mr. Pradhan, the
learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants in ABA No. 2/2022
that the statement of the co-accused Sachin Satpute is not
admissible and cannot be relied upon or used against the
Applicants. It is submitted that Dadar case is not part of the
reply filed. It is pointed out that even in that case a similar
allegation is made as to the assailant taking the name of the
Applicant after the incident. It is submitted that the
circumstances relied upon are remote and not sufficient to show
the complicity of the Applicants in the incident.
20. I have carefully considered the submissions made.
There are six accused, who are already arrested and the present
Applicants alongwith Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli and Dhiraj Jadhao
are shown to be wanted. According to the prosecution, the
conspiracy was hatched on 28 August 2021 between the
Applicant Nitesh Rane and Sachin Satpute in the presence of
7 (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 446
Sneha Chavan page 12 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
Dhiraj Jadhao, both of whom are from Pune. This was on
account of the reason that the injured -informant was allegedly
spreading rumors creating misunderstanding about Rane family.
Further according to the prosecution, the accused nos. 1 to 4,
who are also from Pune were engaged to carry out the object of
the conspiracy.
21. Quite to the contrary, according to the Applicants,
the Applicants are being falsely implicated on account of
political rivalry. The immediate trigger for the same, according
to the Applicants is the incident of 'Catcall lampooning' on 23
December 2021 outside Vidhan Bhavan and the elections to the
said Bank.
22. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is
necessary to note that the entire material which forms the part of
the investigation and the case diary cannot be disclosed at this
stage inasmuch as the investigation is still in progress. The
material has to be examined for the limited purpose and in the
context of the plea for pre-arrest bail.
23. It is necessary to see, whether the investigation so far
has disclosed any material to prima facie show the complicity of
the Applicants in the incident and if, yes, a need for custodial
interrogation. The criminal antecedents, if any, can only enter
Sneha Chavan page 13 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
consideration, thereafter, in the context of the possible misuse of
the protection, if, granted.
24. The incident had taken place on 18 December 2021,
while the incident of catcall is dated 23 December 2021. It is
after the incident of catcall and the declaration of the election to
the said Bank that the Applicants in ABA No. 2/2022 were
called for interrogation on 24 December 2021, when after
recording their statement they were allowed to go. Thus, the
learned Special PP prima facie appears to be right that if, there
was an intention to implicate these Applicants on account of the
incident of catcall and the elections to the said Bank, they could
have been arrested on 24 December 2021 itself. Prima facie it
appears that according to the Investigating Officer, the
complicity of these Applicants emerged after arrest of Sachin
Satpute (A6) from Delhi on 26 December 2021 and his
interrogation. The learned counsel for the Applicants had taken
objection to the reliance placed on the statement of Sachin
Satpute on the ground that it is not admissible being hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In my humble opinion, a
distinction has to be made between admissibility of a piece of
evidence and material disclosed during interrogation of an
arrested accused or a suspect, as an investigational aid/tool.
Applicant No. 1 is the local MLA and the accused, except the
accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the party workers or associates.
Sneha Chavan page 14 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
According to the Investigating Officer, the Applicant No. 1 had
given the photograph of the injured to Sachin Satpute A6. It has
transpired in the investigation that before the incident, A6 had
sent a photograph of the injured to Dheeraj Jadhao. There is a
message at 9.14 am on the day of the incident by which Dheeraj
Jadhao had again asked A6 to send the photograph saying that
the 'boys are ready'. Thereafter, Dnyaneshwar Devnoor had sent
a photograph of the injured to accused Karan Kamble (A2) in
the morning of the incident. It is necessary to note that A2 has
been identified by the injured in the TI parade as the assailant.
There are 65 calls between Sachin Satpute and Rakesh Parab, the
Personal Assistant to Applicant No.1. According to the
Investigating Officer, the Applicant No.1 was using seven
mobile phones and had also made calls from the mobile of his
P.A. Rakesh Parab. Even assuming that the said calls were not
made by Applicant No.1 the fact remains that they were from
the PA of Applicant No.1. There are also certain calls between
Rakesh Parab and Applicant No. 2.
25. The prosecution is relying on the following
circumstances to show the complicity of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2
in the incident.
(i) The meeting between Applicant No.1 and
Sachin Satpute on 28 August 2021 in a vanity Van at
Kankavali.
Sneha Chavan page 15 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
(ii) The statement by the injured that the
assailant Karan Balasaheb Kamble (A2) after the assault
took the name of the Applicants Nitesh Rane and
Gotya Sawant.
(iii) The subsequent identification of Karan
Kamble(A2) by the injured in a TI parade.
(iv) The alleged exchange of the photographs of
the injured between Applicant No.1, Sachin Satpute
(A6), Dheeraj Jadhao, Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli (WA 3)
ultimately leading to Karan Kamble (A2).
(v) The interrogation of the accused Sachin
Satpute after his arrest on 26 December 2021.
(vi) The CDR showing the repeated contact
between the accused and more particularly the PA of
the Applicant No. 1 and Sachin Satpute.
Prima facie, the cumulative effect of these
circumstances has to be seen at this stage to decide on the plea
for pre-arrest bail and need for custodial interrogation.
26. The law relating to grant of anticipatory bail is too
well settled to be restated. The Supreme Court in Siddharam
Mhetre (supra) after taking survey of several decisions holding
the field including the illustrated decision of the Constitution
Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v/s. State of Panjab 8 has noted
8 (1980) 2 SCC 565
Sneha Chavan page 16 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
the following factors and parameters which can be taken into
consideration while dealing with such application.
"112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with the
anticipatory bail:
i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court
in respect of any cognizable offence;
iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood
to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by arresting him or her.
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people.
vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The court
must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which accused is
implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider
with even greater care and caution because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
viii. While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between
two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to
the free, fair and full investigation and there should
Sneha Chavan page 17 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
be prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused;
ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat
to the complainant;
x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of
grant of bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the accused is entitled
to an order of bail."
27. In a more recent decision of the Constitution Bench
in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) the following questions were
referred to the larger Bench for determination.
"(1) Whether the protection granted to a person
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed
period so as to enable the person to surrender before
the trial court and seek regular bail.
(2) Whether the life of an anticipatory bail
should end at the time and stage when the accused is
summoned by the court."
The Supreme Court has set out the conclusions in
paragraphs 91 and 92 of the Judgment. In para 92.4, it has been
held that the courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offence and
the role attributed to the Applicant and the facts of the case. It is
necessary to note that the question would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case.
Sneha Chavan page 18 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
28. In Sushila Aggarwal (supra), it was one of the
questions involved, whether upon grant of anticipatory bail, if
the investigating agency requires the custody of the accused for
discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the accused
would or could be required to surrender? In the context of such
an issue, the Supreme Court held in para 92.8 as under:
"92.8 The observations in Sibbia regarding
"limited custody" or "deemed custody" to facilitate
the requirements of the investigative authority,
would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the
provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of
an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to
a statement made during such event (i.e deemed
custody). In such event, there is no question (or
necessity) of asking the accused to separately
surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had
observed that:
"19. ....if and when the occasion arises, it
may be possible for the prosecution to
claim the benefit of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of
facts made in pursuance of information
supplied by a person released on bail by
invoking the principle stated by this Court
in State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya."
29. In Jogindar Kumar (supra), a young Advocate was
called to the office of the Superintendent of Police for inquiries
in connection with some case, and was kept in police custody for
5 days. Pursuant to a Writ Petition for his release, it was
contended on behalf of the police that the Petitioner was not
detained and his help was taken for detecting some abduction
Sneha Chavan page 19 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
cases. The Supreme Case on facts found that the explanation
was not sufficient or satisfactory and a detailed inquiry was
directed. Thus, the case clearly turned on facts.
30. Coming to the antecedents, in the reply, the
prosecution has set out in all five cases against Applicant No. 1
and 26 cases against Applicant No 2. It is pointed out that
Applicant No. 1 was arrested in Crime No. 205/2019 of Police
Station Kankavali under Section 353, 332, 342, 324, 147, 143,
148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 109 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3 of
the Damage to Public Property Act. The Applicant No. 2 has
been convicted in Crime No. 64/2011 of Police Station Vengurla
District Sindhudurga under Section 307, 143, 147, 148 etc.
31. It is necessary to note that the arrested accused Nos.
1 to 6 and the accused Dheeraj Jadhao and Dnyaneshwar @
Mauli are all from Pune and it is in this context that it is claimed
that the interrogation of the applicants is necessary to further
investigate the conspiracy including the exchange of money, if
any, as the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were allegedly hired for the
purpose. Thus, the custody is not sought only for the purpose of
recovery of any article but also for interrogation which would be
necessary. The Supreme Court in the case of Anil Sharma has
held that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
oriented than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with
a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Sneha Chavan page 20 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
Procedure". It is necessary to note that the Supreme Court has
noted the decision in Anil Sharma in the Constitution Bench
decision in Sushila Aggarwal's case.
32. The court in such a case is required to balance the
conflicting considerations of personal liberty and a need for
proper investigation in a larger societal interest. At this stage, in
my considered view the proper investigation is the paramount
consideration. Thus, I do not find that the Applicants in ABA
No.2 of 2022 are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
33. Coming to the Applicant, Manish Dalvi in ABA no
51/2022 his name does not figure in the complaint lodged by
the injured. His involvement is not prima facie shown on the
basis of the investigation at this stage. He was called as a witness.
Even in the reply filed by the Investigating Officer before the
Sessions Court on 28 December 2021, he was referred to as a
witness. The learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed out
that the interim protection was refused to the Applicant only
because of possibility of law and order situation which is not
permissible. The only material at this stage insofar as the said
Applicant is concerned, is that he had made one call each to
Sachin Satpute and Sharad Dokale, who is not an accused or a
suspect in this case and four calls to Rakesh Parab and his
location near Railway station, that is near the spot of incident.
Sneha Chavan page 21 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the applicant
and others had gone to meet the party central leader at his
residence, which is near Railway Station. It is also pointed out
that there are no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the
Applicant as he has been acquitted of the offences in a full trial
on contest, which is not disputed. Thus, in my considered view,
protection can be granted to the Applicant Manish Dalvi on
conditions.
34. It is made clear that the observations herein are
essentially of a prima facie nature, only for a limited purpose of
deciding the application for pre-arrest bail and the learned
Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the same at the
subsequent stage, if any.
35. Hence the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) ABA No. 2/2022 is rejected
(ii) ABA No. 51/2022 is allowed.
(iii) In the event of his arrest in connection with
investigation of Crime No. 387/2021 of PS Kankavali the
Applicant Manish Prakash Dalvi be released on bail on
execution of a PR bond of Rs 50,000/- with one or two solvent
sureties in the like amount.
Sneha Chavan page 22 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
(iv) The Applicant shall attend PS Kankavali on
20th, 21st and 22nd January 2022 between 11 am to 1 pm and
thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer.
(v) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if
any, before the Investigating officer and shall not leave
Sindhudurga District without prior intimation to the
investigating officer until further orders.
(vi) The Applicant shall co-operate with the
investigating agency and shall not make any attempt to directly
or indirectly contact or influence the witnesses or to otherwise
tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(vii) The Applicant shall not indulge into any acts
which tends to interfere with the proper investigation of the
offence.
(viii) In the event of breach of any conditions, the
bail is liable to be cancelled.
35. At this stage, Mr. Pradhan, the learned Senior
counsel for the Applicants has submitted that some protection
be granted to the Applicants in order to enable them to decide
on the further course of action.
36. Mr. Pasbola, the learned Special PP pointed out that
there was no interim protection either before the Sessions Judge
or before this Court operating in favour of the Applicants.
Sneha Chavan page 23 of 24
3 aba 2-22.doc
However, the Investigating Officer had made a statement that no
coercive or precipitative steps shall be taken against the
Applicants, during the pendancy of the application before this
Court. The learned Special PP in all fairness, after taking
specific instructions, from the Investigating Officer states that
the said statement shall continue till 27 January 2022. In that
view of the matter, no further orders are necessary.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.)
Sneha Chavan page 24 of 24
