Bombay High Court
Sandesh @ Sonu Prakash Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2908 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.779 OF 2022
Sandesh @ Sonu Prakash Salve .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3114 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2908 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.779 OF 2022
Suresh Ratanlal Dalod .... Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Sandesh @ Sonu Prakash Salve .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Ms. Angela Singha a/w S. T. Pandey a/w Arvind Singh, a/w
Anima Mishra a/w Kajal Upadhyay a/w Ritu Singh i/b. SBG
Law Advocate, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
• Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w Ateet Shirodkar i/b. Bhavin Jain, for
Digitally
Intervenor in IA/3114/2022.
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
NESARIKAR Date:
2023.02.17
16:58:09
+0530
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2023
Nesarikar
2/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
P.C. :
1. The Applicant Sandesh @ Sonu Prakash Salve has
preferred Criminal Appeal No.779/2022, which is already admitted.
2. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
his Appeal. The Applicant is arrested in the subject matter on
18/11/2018 and since then he is in custody. The Applicant was
the original accused No.3. There were two other accused in
Sessions Case No.133/2019 before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik. The Trial Judge vide his Judgment and Order
dated 29/06/2022 convicted all the accused including the
Applicant for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34
of the IPC. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of the period of 10 years, the Applicant is already in custody
for more than four years.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17/11/2018, because
of the previous enmity, the three accused including the present
3/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
Applicant, assaulted the injured Suresh Dalod and his son
Siddharth Dalod. There are allegations that Suresh's nephew
Saurabh was also assaulted.
4. Suresh was examined as P.W.3. He has deposed that the
accused No.1 Vikram @ Pappu Tasambad had assaulted him
with a chopper. Accused No.2 Pintu @ Pradip Tasambad
assaulted him with a wooden stick. The present Applicant
assaulted him with a fighter.
5. Siddharth was another injured. He was examined as
P.W.1. Saurabh was an eyewitness who was also assaulted. He
was examined as P.W.2. Both of them had rushed to save P.W.3.
Accused No.1 gave blow of knife on the back of P.W.1 Siddharth.
The FIR was lodged by Siddharth. The investigation was carried
out. Siddharth and Suresh both were admitted to the hospital.
6. Heard Ms. Angela Singha, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Ganesh Gole, learned counsel for the Intervenor
and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
4/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
7. Learned counsel for Applicant submitted that though
the Applicant is convicted u/s 307 r/w 34 of the IPC, there is
possibility that the accused No.1 had committed the main
offence single handedly. The role attributed to the present
Applicant is absolutely minor and there is no corresponding
injury to any of the alleged witnesses. She submitted that the
Applicant is in custody for more than four years out of 10 years.
The Appeal is not likely to be decided within the remaining
period. There are no antecedents against him. She therefore
prays for grant of bail.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Gole for the Intervenor i.e. the
first informant Suresh, who was the victim in this case, opposed
these submissions. He invited my attention to the letter sent to
the Intervenor through jail by an inmate of the Applicant;
wherein an apprehension was expressed that Suresh's safety was
in danger as the Applicant and others were planning to seek
revenge. He submitted that even after the conviction, the
accused No.1 had assaulted the intervenor in the Court premises
itself, for which a separate NC is lodged. He therefore expressed
5/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
apprehension regarding safety of the intervenor. Even otherwise,
on merits, he submitted that, all the accused had come together
and therefore the common intention is clear from the roles
attributed to them.
9. Learned APP supported the contention of learned
counsel Mr. Gole.
10. I have considered these submissions. Though there is
conviction u/s 307 r/w 34 of the IPC, the role of the present
Applicant is distinguishable from that of the main accused i.e.
accused No.1, whose Bail Application is rejected. The Applicant
is alleged to have used fighter in assaulting Suresh and Saurabh.
However, there are no corresponding injury reflected in the
medical evidence. Dr. Bipin Palghadmal was examined as P.W.7
and he has described the injuries suffered by the injured Suresh
and Siddharth. According to P.W.1 he was assaulted by the
accused No.1 Vikram and accused No.2 Pintu. There are no
allegations that the Applicant had assaulted him. Injury
6/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
certificate of Saurabh is not produced on record. Therefore,
there is nothing to support the prosecution case that the
Applicant had caused assault. Though, there is CCTV footage,
the fact remains that there is no corresponding injury because of
the fighter, which is attributed to the Applicant. Therefore, at
this stage, there is scope to believe that the Applicant's role is
distinguishable and is minor, compared to the role of the
accused No.1 Vikram @ Pappu. Therefore, the Applicant
deserves to be granted bail, particularly since he is in custody for
more than four years. At the same time, the apprehension
expressed by learned counsel Mr. Gole cannot be ignored.
Therefore, certain conditions are required to be imposed on him.
Needless to add that the police are duty bound to take care of
the Intervenor if his apprehension is real and reasonable.
11. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2022, the Applicant is
7/7 10-IA-2908-22-IN-APEAL-779-22.odt
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing
P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the
like amount.
(ii) During pendency of this Appeal, the Applicant
shall not enter the Nasik District.
(iii) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police
station once a month where he will be residing. He
will give prior intimation to the Investigating
Officer in this case about his residence.
(iv) Interim Application No.2908 of 2022 stands
disposed of accordingly.
(v) With disposal of this application, nothing survives
in the Intervention Application. In any case, I have
heard learned counsel for the Intervenor.
Therefore, the Intervention Application i.e. Interim
Application No.3114 of 2022, is also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
