Bombay High Court
Sachin @ Pinu Navnath Devkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 November, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, Gauri Godse
2023:BHC-AS:33252
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
rrpillai
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1374 OF 2020
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2019
Sachin @ Pinu Navnath Devkar ... Applicant
(Accused no. 18)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
Ms. Ankita Nishad i/b. Ms.Vrushali Maindad for the Applicant.
Ms. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 1st NOVEMBER 2023
P. C. :
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 2 nd April 2019
has been convicted by the learned Session Judge, Barshi, District-
1/7
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
Solapur in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2014 alongwith other co-
accused and sentenced as under :
-- for the offence punishable under section 148 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer simple imprisonment for three
years;
-- for the offence punishable under Sections 341 read with
149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer simple imprisonment
for one month;
-- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment of one year.
All the aforesaid sentences are been directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the ground of
parity. She submits that the role of the applicant is similar to co-
accused no. 11- Santosh Tukaram Pawar and accused no.14 - Nagesh
Manik Dhotre. She submits that the said applicants sentences were
2/7
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
suspended and they were enlarged on bail by this court vide order
dated 7th October 2023.
5. Learned APP does not dispute the said fact that the role of the
applicant in the aforesaid application is at par with co-accused nos. 11
and 14 who have been enlarged on bail.
6. Perused the papers. According to the prosecution, the incident
took place on 26th April 2014 at around 7.15 - 7.30 a.m. on a public
road, near Indira Nagar Zopadpatti and in front of the house of
accused no. 1- Shivaji @ Anna Chandrakant Pawar. It is the
prosecution case, that about 20 accused who were present at the spot
assaulted Ichappa @ Vitthal (deceased) with weapons, resulting in his
death. Accordingly, P.W.1 - Sitaram, uncle of the deceased, lodged an
F.I.R., as against the accused on the very same day i.e. on 26 th April
2014. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the said case and
after a full fledged trial, the applicant was convicted as stated
aforesaid.
7. Prosecution in support of its case, examined three eye witnesses
i.e. P.W. 1- Sitaram; P.W. 2 - Kondabai, grandmother of the deceased
3/7
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
and P.W. 8 - Vijay.
8. According to P.W. 1 - Sitaram (first informant and eye witness),
he had witnessed the incident of assault of his nephew -Ichappa on
26th April 2014. P.W. 1 - Sitaram in his evidence has not named the
accused who assaulted his nephew and the weapons held by them with
which his nephew was assaulted. No specific overt act has been
attributed to any of the accused. It appears that this witness has
identified the applicant in the court.
9. As far as evidence of P.W. 2 - Kondabai is concerned, she has
stated that she has witnessed the incident of assault on 26 th April 2014
and has stated about the weapons held by the accused. She has further
stated which of the accused assaulted her grandson and with which
weapon. As far as the applicant is concerned, she has stated that the
applicant was armed with wooden logs. In her cross-examination, P.W.
2-Kondabai has stated that when she went to the spot, she did not
speak to any person and that when she reached the spot, her
grandson- Ichappa @ Vitthal was lying in a pool of blood and that
Ichappa @ Vitthal's face was in gutter.
4/7
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
10. As far as evidence of P.W. 8-Vijay is concerned, it appears that the
statement was recorded three months after the incident. It prima facie
appears that the said witness was also a panch to the recovery
panchanamas which were prepared much prior to his statement being
recorded by the police. Even otherwise, perusal of the evidence of the
said witness i.e. P.W. 8-Vijay shows, that on the previous date i.e. on
25th April 2014, he saw about 20 persons whom he has named sitting
near the finance office in an open space and that on the day of the
incident i.e. on 26th April 2014 when he was proceeding for work, he
saw the deceased being assaulted. He has stated that 20 persons who
were present on the previous day assaulted the deceased. It appears
that there was no TIP and the accused have not been identified by the
said witness. It is pertinent to note that the said witness has not
named any of the accused in his 161 statement and has identified the
applicant in the court for the first time. He has stated that as he was
frightened, he ran away from the spot.
11. It is informed that there is no other circumstantial evidence as
against the applicant, in the form of recovery of any weapon or blood
stained clothes or any other circumstance. It is also stated by the
5/7
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no
antecedents. Statement accepted. The applicant is in custody for
almost 9 years.
12. Having perused the order dated 7 th October 2023 by which the
co-accused nos. 11 and 14 have been enlarged on bail and having
regard to what is stated aforesaid and having considered the evidence
qua the applicant, the application is allowed and applicant's sentence
is suspended and he is enlarged on bail 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/- each 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 the
appeals are finally disposed of;
iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of their
current address and mobile contact number and/or change of
7-IA-1374-2020-APEAL-800-2019.doc
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.
11. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Signed by: Rajeshwari R. Pillai
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/11/2023 17:36:27
