Bombay High Court
Amol S/O Sukhdeve Uikey vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Chikhaldara ... on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
17.appeal54.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2023
Amol s/o Sukhdeve Uikey
Age : 29 years, Occu.: Laborer,
R/o. Kotmi, Tq. Chikhaldara, ... Appellant
Dist. Amravati.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Chikhaldara,
Tq. Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati.
.. Respondents
2. Gondu s/o Ramsu Maraskolhe,
Age: 50 years, R/o. Kotmi,
Tq. Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati.
Mr. D.S. Khushalani, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for respondent No.1.
Mrs. S.P. Dhotre, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 11.04.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: Vinay Joshi, J.)
. Heard.
(2) Admit. Heard finally by the consent of the learned
counsel for the respective parties.
PAGE 1 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
(3) This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, raising a challenge to the order of rejection of regular bail in
Crime No.192/2022, registered with Police Station Chikhaldhara,
District - Amravati, relating to offences punishable under Section 302,
201, 376(D), 120(B) and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(4) At the instance of report dated 12.09.2022 lodged
by the Police Officer, a crime has been registered. Deceased girl aged
19 years went missing from her house on 17.08.2022. After two days
i.e. 19.08.2022, her dead body was found floating in the Well water.
The police have initially registered a murg report and conducted
enquiry. During enquiry, the police have verified call details of the
deceased. During enquiry, it was transpired that on 17.08.2022,
deceased was in contact with three boys namely Amol (appellant),
Jakir and Mukesh. The Sim Card of deceased was later on used by co-
accused Jakir whilst appellant Amol and Mukesh have switched off
their mobiles for few days. The police also came across that on
17.08.2022, the appellant and others were found roaming near the
PAGE 2 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
field were a dead body was found. The body was in decomposed
condition, hence, initially the cause of death was not revealed. It was
found in post-mortem examination that hyoid bone was depressed.
Medical opinion was sought on which the possibility of throttling the
deceased was surfaced. Therefore, police have registered crime against
three persons including appellant Amol for committing murder of
deceased girl. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet has
been filed. The appellant has applied to the trial Court for grant of
regular bail, however, vide order dated 19.12.2022, the trial Court has
declined to grant bail and therefore, this appeal.
(5) The learned counsel appearing for appellant would
submit that there is no adequate material against the appellant so as to
curtail his liberty. It is submitted that though deceased went missing
on 17.08.2022 and her dead body was found on 19.08.2022, however,
no grievance was put by family members of the deceased till lodging
FIR. The applicant took us through the statement of father of
deceased dated 21.08.2022 recorded in murg enquiry. In said
statement the father of deceased stated that on 17.08.2022 his
daughter went missing and within two days her dead body was found
in the Well. He said that his daughter died due to felling in the Well
PAGE 3 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
and he has no suspicion against anybody. Moreover, it is argued that
there was love relationship in between deceased and co-accused Jakir.
In past also Jakir has abducted deceased girl and due to intervention of
Panchayat, Jakir has returned the girl to her parents. It is submitted
that the statements of the witnesses no were discloses the specific role
of the appellant.
(6) Our attention has been invited to the statement of
father of deceased dated 25.08.2022. In said statement, he has
expressed suspicion against all three accused. Precisely, he stated
about the earlier incident wherein co-accused Jakir abducted his
daughter and then, returned to him.
(7) Particularly, informant stated that on 17.08.2022, in
the evening his mother namely Chaiti disclosed that in the afternoon
she has seen two boys covered their faces took away the deceased girl.
He further stated that co-accused Jakir has instigated his daughter,
abducted her in which applicant and Mukesh assisted him.
Contextually, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the
statement of mother of informant namely Chaiti, who nowhere
supports the said contention that she had seen two persons taking
PAGE 4 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
away her grand daughter.
(8) The prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution is relying on the statements of two
witnesses namely Channu Uikey (Page 105), Anil Uikey (Page 107),
who have seen appellant on the date of occurrence, while proceeding
towards village Chirni by riding on motor cycle. These statements are
in the nature that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was in the
village and at the most was in the company of co-accused. The said
material cannot be termed as a last seen together. Besides that the
prosecution is relying on tower location and call detail record of the
accused and deceased. We have examined the call details from which
learned APP has only pointed that on the date of occurrence, there
were two calls in between main accused Jakir and appellant.
Apparently, there is no conversation between appellant and deceased
girl. As regards to tower location is concerned, admittedly, the
appellant is resident of the same village, therefore, it is a matter of
interpretation in the trial.
(9) Pertinent to note that though the father of deceased
in his statement dated 25.08.2022, has expressed suspicion against
PAGE 5 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
Jakir and other, however, the crime was registered on 12.09.2022. It
reveals from the police papers that co-accused Jakir has hatched a
conspiracy, abducted deceased and with the aid of appellant and one
Mukesh eliminated the deceased. The circumstances which are against
the appellant are about his presence in the village on the date of
occurrence and his two calls with principal accused Jakir. Besides that
learned APP has not pointed any other circumstances against the
appellant. Already investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
been filed. The trial will take its own time for disposal in according to
law. Having regard to the nature of material adduced against the
appellant, we hold that a case of bail is made out. Hence, we pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of rejection of bail dated
19.12.2022, passed in Criminal Bail Application
No.557/2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant - Amol Sukhdeve Uikey shall be
released on bail in Crime No.192/2022, registered with
Police Station Chikhaldhara, District - Amravati, relating to
offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 376(D),
PAGE 6 OF 7
17.appeal54.2023.odt
120(B) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on
his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution
evidence in any manner.
(v) The appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station on first Monday of each month in between 10:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon for the period of one year from today.
(vi) The appellant shall provide his residential address
and cell number to Investigating Officer.
(10) The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
(11) Fees of appointed counsel be paid as per rules.
[BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Prity
PAGE 7 OF 7
