Rahul Bhikulal Kasat vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 8752 Bom

                                                                         BA.1055.2022.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        BAIL APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2022

Rahul Bhikulal Kasat                                              ..Applicant
           Vs.
The State of Maharashtra                                          ..Respondent

                               ----
Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate along with Mr.Amey Deshpande,
Ms.Vandana Bait and Ms.Rakhi V. Sundale i/b. Mr.A.R.Gaikwad,
Advocates for applicant
Mr.V.S.Badakh, APP for respondent-State, assisted by Mr.V.S.Bhale,
Advocate for informant/intervenor
                                 ----
                                   CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON : AUGUST 20,2022 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 05, 2022 ORDER :-

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The applicant has been arrested in connection

with Crime No.0120 of 2021 registered with Selu Police Station,

Dist.Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B,

201, 203, 427, 403, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

2. Heard Mr.Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, appearing

for the applicant and Mr.V.S.Badakh, learned APP for the respondent-

State, assisted by Mr.V.S.Bhale, learned counsel for the

informant/intervenor.

                                                   2                                     BA.1055.2022



3.                The     First     Information       Report     (F.I.R.)      was,     initially,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 427

of I.P.C. The informant then gave a supplementary statement,

alleging the applicant to have got the informant's brother murdered.

It is said to be a case of contract killing. On investigation of the

crime, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and the co-

accused.

4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

applicant had extra-marital relationship with the widow of the

deceased-Suresh. The applicant and the deceased were friends.

The applicant's family relationship with the deceased is said to be a

reason of intimacy between him and the widow of the deceased.

The relationship between the two did not remain secret. It came to

the knowledge of the deceased. He, therefore, ensured that his wife

would no longer remain in contact with the applicant. She even

discontinued making use of cell-phone. The applicant was said to be

desperate to continue with the relationship. He would call on the

cell-phone of the son of the deceased. So as to ensure to have

smooth relationship with the wife of the deceased, the applicant

gave a contract to kill the deceased and even got the murder

3 BA.1055.2022

executed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit

that it was a case of death occurred in motor vehicle accident. The

brother of the deceased himself reported the matter. The persons,

who were employed by him for agricultural operations, claimed to

have had witnessed the accident. The informant then changed his

version to contend that it was so done only with a view to ensure

that the widow and the child of the deceased would get some money

under insurance claim. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit

that the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Selu, had demanded bribe

from the applicant, so as to ensure not to arrest him in the crime,

since, by that time, the audio clip of the talks between the applicant

and the widow of the deceased, had become viral. The talks indicate

that the deceased was murdered and not died in accident. The

applicant had, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau.

The concerned Dy. Superintendent of Police was trapped accepting

the bribe money. The demand was for Rs. One Crore. Since a police

Officer of high rank came to be trapped at the instance of the

applicant, the case that was reported as accidental death, came to

be reopened only with a view to take revenge. Learned Senior

4 BA.1055.2022

Counsel would submit it to be a case based on circumstantial

evidence. The persons, on whose statements, the prosecution

proposed to rely, are in the nature of evidence of accomplice. One

accomplice cannot corroborate the another.

6. On the question of conversation between the applicant

and the co-accused - Vinod Ambhure recorded by the co-accused

himself and preserved in the memory card is concerned, learned

Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that it is not original

conversation between the two. There is no certification under

Section 65B of the Evidence Act in support thereof. The

Investigating Officer himself has issued such certificate in support of

the talks which has been preserved in the memory card. The

memory card did not contain the original conversation. On the

question of voice identification of the applicant and the co-accused in

the recorded conversation is concerned, learned Senior Counsel

would submit that the Investigating Officer obtained voice samples

of both of them without Court's permission. For obtaining voice

samples, they were asked to read out inculpatory material in the

conversation. The same is improper. Reliance has been placed on

the Apex Court's judgments in the cases of (i) Sudhir Chaudhary and

5 BA.1055.2022

ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016)8 SCC 307 and (ii) Ritesh Sinha

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr., (2019)8 SCC 1. Learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant, would, ultimately, urge for allowing the

application.

7. Learned APP and learned counsel for the

informant/intervenor would, on the other hand, submit that it is a

serious offence. Although the case is based on circumstantial

evidence, there is strong material to indicate the applicant's

involvement in the crime in question. It was also submitted that the

charge has been framed. The observations, if any, likely to be made

by this Court, may affect the trial of the case. Both learned counsel,

therefore, urged for rejection of the application.

8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the

police papers relied on.

9. There are statements of the widow of the deceased and

other material witnesses as well, to indicate that the applicant had

extra-marital relationship with her for about 3-4 years. The

statement of the widow of the deceased indicates her to have

6 BA.1055.2022

suspected the applicant as mastermind of the crime. True, initially,

it was reported as a motor accident. There are statements of the

witnesses to that effect as well. The fact is, however, that there was

no material to indicate involvement of the two vehicles in the alleged

accident. The persons, who claimed to have had witnessed the

accident, later on, stated to have made such statements at the

instance of the brother of the deceased, only with a view to see that

the widow and the child of the deceased would get some money of

insurance claim by filing motor accident claim petition. There are

statements of some of the persons to indicate the applicant to have

had approached them so as to hire them for committing murder of

the deceased. Earlier, two-three such plans had failed. These

observations are made on the basis of the statements of the

persons, who had been approached by the applicant.

10. The applicant is financially sound. The offence is serious

one. True, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. If the

applicant is granted bail, there is every possibility of him to influence

the prosecution witnesses. The charge has already been framed. It

would, therefore, not desirable for this Court to sift the prosecution

material at this stage. There is also material to indicate the

7 BA.1055.2022

applicant to have been in constant contact with the co-accused on

cell-phone. He used number of sim cards. The sim cards were

purchased in the names of some other persons only with a view to

hide the identity. The co-accused, who eliminated the deceased at

the behest of the applicant, has preserved the telephonic

conversation between the applicant and him. The same is part and

parcel of the prosecution material. The voice samples of the

applicant and the co-accused were obtained. They did not raise any

objection when it was being obtained. Whatever were grounds of

objection raised here, could very well be dealt with by the trial court.

11. It is reiterated that the offence is serious one. There is

material indicating the applicant's involvement in the crime in

question. The charge has been framed, meaning thereby the trial

has commenced.

12. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to allow

the application at this stage. Hence, the following order:-

(i) The application fails. The same is rejected.

(ii)               The trial Court is requested to expedite hearing of the





                                          8                                BA.1055.2022

case and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) In case the trial could not be concluded within the time frame, the applicant would be at liberty to move an application for bail.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP