Bombay High Court
Kalpesh @ Chotu Ramnath Saroj vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 December, 2023
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse
2023:BHC-AS:38619-DB
7.3987.22 ia.doc
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3987 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2021
Kalpesh @ Chotu Ramnath Saroj ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents
Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Mrs. Pooja Sejpal, Ms. Akshata Desai and Ms.
Sakshi Jha for the applicant
Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State
Ms. Ilsa Shaikh for the intervener
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 18th DECEMBER 2023
ORAL ORDER: (PER: REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his
sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final
disposal of his aforesaid appeal.
3. The applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 3rd March 2021
7.3987.22 ia.doc
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions
Case No. 743 of 2012 has been convicted alongwith another co-
accused Ravindrakumar Yadav as under:
-- For offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo
further simple imprisonment for six months;
-- For offence punishable under Section 364-A of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to
undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
-- For offence punishable under Section 389 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo
further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
All the aforesaid sentences are directed to run concurrently.
4. Perused the papers. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial
evidence. As far as the applicant is concerned, the circumstances
alleged are recovery of the dead body of the deceased, at the instance
7.3987.22 ia.doc
of the applicant and seizure of the sim card of the deceased, from the
person of the applicant. According to the prosecution, the applicant
was apprehended soon after a bag containing ransom money was
handed over to Ravindrakumar Yadav(original accused no. 2).
5. We have perused the evidence pertaining to the aforesaid
circumstances as against the appellant.
6. As far as P.W. 1-Ramchandra Sriram is concerned, he has set out
how he received a call on 13 th August 2012 at about 2.45 p.m. from
his son's (deceased) mobile asking him for ransom; that the calls
continued till the next date; that the ransom money was handed over
as directed to a person in a green tea-shirt at Jogeshwari. P.W.1-
Ramchandra has stated that he went to the co-accused Ravindrakumar
and handed over the money; that the police apprehended the said
person alongwith money. He has identified the said person to be
Ravindrakumar Yadav. (co-accused No. 2) He has further stated that
after receipt of the amount, Ravindrakumar went to an auto-rickshaw
where two persons were present and that the applicant was also
7.3987.22 ia.doc
apprehended by the police. The evidence of P.W.2-Dharmendra
Chavan, a panch witness is that he was present alongwith the police
and P.W.1 on 14th August 2012. According to P.W.2-Dharmendra when
the complainant went and handed over the bag to Ravindra, the said
person on foot proceeded towards the rickshaw and was talking with
another person; that thereafter, they both occupied the rickshaw; that
one police official went in the said rickshaw as passenger whereas he
alongwith another panch occupied another auto-rickshaw; that their
rickshaw overtook the rickshaw of the said two persons, pursuant to
which the police apprehended two persons i.e. the applicant and
Ravindrakumar Yadav. The said version set out by P.W. 2 appears to be
prima facie inconsistent to what was disclosed by P.W. 1 in his
evidence. It is not clear as to who the third person was and the
involvement of the said person. As noted from the evidence of P.W. 1,
Ravindrakumar was handed over the ransom money and apprehended
by the police on the spot, whereas evidence of P.W. 2 is as stated
above.
7. As far as recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
7.3987.22 ia.doc
applicant is concerned, P.W. 1-Ramchandra in his cross-examination in
para 19 has stated that one Suresh Jadhav was helping him to search
his son Ganesh from 14 th August 2012; that one of his sons alongwith
Suresh Jadhav and police had been to the spot where the dead body
was found on Mumbai-Ahmadabad road in a creek on 15 th August
2012.
8. As far as P.W. 4-Nitin Keni is concerned, the substantive evidence
prima facie shows only knowledge where the dead body was kept and
does not disclose that he had concealed the said dead body. It has
come in the cross-examination of P.W. 4-Nitin that the body was not
concealed but was visible. As far as recovery of the deceased's sim card
at the instance of the applicant is concerned, no evidence has been
collected by the prosecution to show that the deceased was using the
mobile number (sim card). The prosecution has not adduced evidence
that the said sim card was being used by the deceased since CDR/SDR
were not collected by the prosecution. The deceased's bag allegedly
recovered from the applicant was recovered from the house occupied
not only by the applicant, but also by the applicant's mother-in-law
7.3987.22 ia.doc
and as such, it cannot be said that the applicant was in exclusive
possession of the said premises. Admittedly, no blood stains were
found on the clothes of the applicant, although according to the
prosecution, he was apprehended immediately. Even otherwise, the
applicant is in custody since 14 th August 2012 for more than 12 years.
Appeal is of the year 2021 and the said appeal is not likely to come up
for hearing in the immediate near future.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the
applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending
the hearing and final disposal of his aforesaid appeal, on the following
terms and conditions:
ORDER
i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in
three months on the day/date specified by the trial Court,
till his Appeal is finally disposed of;
7.3987.22 ia.doc
iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of
his current address and mobile contact number and/or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time;
iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing
before the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a
report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at
liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.
9. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and accordingly
disposed of.
All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/12/2023 19:10:14
