Bombay High Court
Mukesh S/O. Ramsing Bethekar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso ... on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
1 3-J-APPEAL-378-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2023
APPELLANT : Mukesh s/o Ramsing Bethekar,
(In Jail) Age : 20 Years, Occu : Laborer,
R/o. Kotmi, Tq. Chikhaldara,
Dist : Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra
Through P. S. O. Chikhaldara,
Tq. Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati.
2. Gondu s/o Ramsu Maraskkolhe,
Age : 50 Years, Occu : Labour,
R/o. Kotmi, Tq. Chikhaldara,
Dist. Amravati.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. S. Khushalani, Advocate for appellant.
Shri N. R. Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 19/07/2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 03:51:17 :::
2 3-J-APPEAL-378-23.doc
Crime No.192/2022, registered with Police Station Chikhaldara,
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.
3. 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 the boys namely Jakir
and Mukesh. The Sim Card of deceased was later on used by co-
accused Jakir whilst appellant Mukesh and Amol 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
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
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 03:51:17 :::
3 3-J-APPEAL-378-23.doc
registered crime against three persons including appellant Mukesh
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 10.05.2023, the trial Court has declined to grant bail
and therefore, this appeal.
4. The appellant has mainly claimed bail by invoking the
principle of parity on account of release of co-accused Amol by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No.54/2023 decided on 11/04/2023. It
is submitted that the main allegations are against the co-accused
Jakir, who is still behind bars. The role assigned to the appellant -
Mukesh as well as Amol (released) are exactly same and thus, the
appellant is also entitled for similar treatment.
5. Shri Rode, learned APP as well as Ms. Deepali Sapkal,
learned counsel (appointed) for the informant though unable to
point out any distinction in between the role of appellant and
Amol. However, they would submit that considering the gravity of
the offence, the appellant does not deserve for bail. Moreover, it is
submitted that there are chances of tampering.
6. We have exhaustively dealt with the case of Amol on
merits in our order dated 11/04/2023. We have considered the
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 03:51:17 :::
4 3-J-APPEAL-378-23.doc
statement of whiteness, Call Detail Records and having regard to
the material pertaining to circumstantial evidence, we have
released Amol on bail. Absolutely, there is no distinction in the role
of appellant than Amol. Therefore, we see no reason to give
different treatment to the appellant.
7. In view of the above, the appellant is entitled for bail
on the ground of parity. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
i] Criminal appeal is allowed.
ii] The impugned order of rejection of bail
dated 10.05.2023, passed in Criminal Bail
Application No.216/2023, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
iii] The appellant - Mukesh s/o Ramsing
Bethekar shall be released on bail in Crime
No.192/2022, registered with Police Station
Chikhaldara, District - Amravati, relating to
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
376(D), 120(B) and Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 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.
5 3-J-APPEAL-378-23.doc
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.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. Fees of appointed counsel be paid as per rules.
[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Choulwar
