Bombay High Court
Narendra Manohar Ingale And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
Digitally signed
by CHITRA
SANJAY
CHITRA SONAWANE
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2023.02.20
13:57:34
Chitra Sonawane +0530 45-IA-336-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1243 OF 2022
1.Narendra Manohar Ingale
Age : 25 years,
2.Manohar Govind Ingale
Age : 50 years,
3. Ranjana Manohar Ingale
Age: 45 years,
All R/o.Bhavepathar, Tal.Mahad,
Dist.Raigad.
(All presently lodged at Amravati
Central Prison) .... Applicants.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance Mahad MIDC
Police Station, Dist: Raigad) .... Respondents
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE
& R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 20 FEBRUARY 2023.
Mr Aniket Nikam, Advocate i/by Amit Icham for
Applicant/Appellant.
Mr AR Kapadnis, APP for Respondent-State.
Page No. 1 of 5
____________________________________________
20 February 2023.
Chitra Sonawane 45-IA-336-2023.doc
Order (Per R.N. Laddha) :
This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail during the pendency of the Appeal.
2. The trial Court, by the judgment and order dated
21.11.2022, in Sessions Case No.3 of 2012, convicted the
Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
498-A, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them
to suffer life imprisonment.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that in between 7.00 a.m. of
1.11.2011 to 10.00 a.m. of 3.11.2011 within the limits of village
Bhavepathar, all the Applicants/Accused, in furtherance of their
common intention, committed murder of deceased Aarti and to
screen themselves from the legal punishment thrown the dead
body of Aarti in the well and caused to disappear the evidence by
knowingly giving false information. It is also the case of the
prosecution that all the Accused, in furtherance of their common
intention, subjected the deceased Aarti to cruelty.
4. In Niranjan Singh & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote &
Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, enunciated that a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications.
1 (1980)2 SCC 559.
Page No. 2 of 5
____________________________________________
20 February 2023.
Chitra Sonawane 45-IA-336-2023.doc
5. Keeping in view the above principle, we have heard Mr
Aniket Nikam, learned Counsel for the Applicants and Mr A.R.
Kapadnis, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent- State.
6. Mr Aniket Nikam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Applicant, submitted that there is no eyewitness to the
incident, and the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. He
submitted that the tests prescribed in a case based upon
circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2, was not fulfilled in this case. He submitted that
most of the circumstances had not been proved by the prosecution
and, in any case, the proved circumstances were not sufficient to
sustain the conviction.
7. Mr Nikam pointed out that panch witnesses did not say that
at the time of the seizure of the clothes of the Accused, they were
stained with blood. He submitted that the alleged weapon was not
shown to the doctor to confirm whether the such injuries was
possible by the seized weapon. Further, he pointed out that PW 5
in his cross-examination does not answer the question as to
whether police told him that those clothes are of Accused No. 1 to
5 and he only signed the Panchanama. It has been submitted that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not adverted to and, in
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
Page No. 3 of 5
____________________________________________
20 February 2023.
Chitra Sonawane 45-IA-336-2023.doc
any case, not considered the Applicants' statement under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He informed that all
three Applicants were on bail during the trial. Further, he
submitted that from the Chemical Analyser's report no definite
opinion can be formed.
8. Mr A.R. Kapadnis, learned APP for the State, submitted that
the impugned conviction is based on the reasoning reflected in
judgment and order. He submitted that the circumstances proved
by the prosecution are sufficient to connect the Applicants with
the crime.
9. It is not in dispute that there is no eyewitness to the
incident. It is also not in conflict that the alleged weapon was not
shown to the doctor when conducting post-mortem to confirm
whether such injuries were possible by the said weapon. The
Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted that
no incriminating articles were found at the spot of the incident.
Further, he acknowledged that nothing was found on the clothes
of the Accused.
10. Considering these facts, the case for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail is made out. The Application is, accordingly,
allowed in the following terms.
Page No. 4 of 5
____________________________________________
20 February 2023.
Chitra Sonawane 45-IA-336-2023.doc
ORDER
i) During the pendency of the present Appeal, a
substantive sentence imposed upon Applicants is
suspended, and they be released, on bail, on the
execution of a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- each, with one
or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
ii) The Applicants shall remain present before this
Court as and when directed.
11. Interim Application stands disposed of.
[R. N.LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE,J.]
____________________________________________
20 February 2023.
