Bombay High Court

Vishal Jaysingh Machle vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2024

Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan

Bench: Prithviraj K. Chavan

2024:BHC-AS:15571                                                2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc


                    Shailaja


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2022

                    Vishal Jaysingh Machle              ]       Applicant
                          Vs.
                    The State of Maharashtra            ]       Respondent

                                                  a/w
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1621 OF 2022
                                                  IN
                               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2022

                    Jamiul A. Haque                     ]       Applicant

                    IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

                    Vishal Jaysingh Machle              ]       Applicant
                          Vs.
                    State of Maharashtra                ]       Respondent
                                                  a/w
                               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2802 OF 2022

                    Irfan Sikandar Shaikh               ]       Applicant
                          Vs.
                    The State of Maharashtra            ]       Respondent
                                                  a/w
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2023
                                                  IN
                               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2802 OF 2022

                    Jamiul A. Haque                     ]       Applicant


                    IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

                    Irfan Sikandar Shaikh               ]       Applicant
                          Vs.
                    The State of Maharashtra            ]       Respondent


                                                                                   1 of 26

                ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2024            ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 19:04:24 :::
                                                   2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc



                                a/w

            CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2022

Rahulsing Tufansing Dudhane              ]       Applicant
            Vs.
The State of Maharashtra                 ]       Respondent

                                a/w

              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1849 OF 2022
                               IN
            CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2022


Jamiul A. Haque                          ]       Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Rahulsing Tufansing Dudhane              ]       Applicant
            Vs.
The State of Maharashtra                 ]       Respondent
                                .....

Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Mr. Amit Icham a/w Mr. Dushyant Digamber
and Mr. Vivek N. Arote, for Applicants in Criminal Bail Application
No.165 of 2022 and Criminal Bail Application No.2802 of 2022.

Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar a/w Mr. Abhishek U. Arote i/b Mr. Sachin S.
Thombare, for Applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.650 of
2022.

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P, for Respondent - State.

Mr. Somnath Thengal, for Applicant in Interim Application
No.1621 of 2022 and Interim Application No.1849 of 2022.

P.S.I Mr. Y.C. Zinjurke, Gandhinagar Police Station, Karvir Division,
H.C/300 Mr. S.B. Kumbhar, Gokul Shirgaon Police Station present.
                                .....




                                                                    2 of 26

::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2024             ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 19:04:24 :::
                                                      2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc



                    CORAM         : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
                    RESERVED ON   : 20TH MARCH, 2024.
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 1ST APRIL, 2024.

COMMON ORDER:

1. Applicants are the original accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 viz: Vishal

Jaysingh Machle, Irfan Sikandar Shaikh and Rahulsingh Tufansing

Dudhane, who are being prosecuted by Gokul Shirgaon Police

Station, Kolhapur in connection with C.R. No.201 of 2020 for the

offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 365, 368, 386, 341, 323,

504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1)

(ii), 3 (ii), 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized

Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOC Act").

2. The first informant - Jamiul Haque, who originally hails from

West Bengal has migrated to Tamgaon, Taluka Karveer, District

Kolhapur. He is a Labour Contractor.

3. On 28th August, 2020, first informant - Jamiul Haque was

returning home after finishing work in a Company known as

"Marvelous Company" situate at M.I.D.C Gokul Shirgaon in his

Tata Indica Vista Car bearing No. MH-12-GF-0138. It was around

10.00 p.m when his car was suddenly intercepted by a Jupiter

3 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

Moped bearing No. MH-09-EV-9596. Two persons riding the said

Moped approached the first informant under the pretext that there

is some important work. Immediately thereafter, one of them

opened the front door of the car and pushed the first informant on

the adjoining seat and occupied the driving seat. At that time,

another person occupied rear seat and put a knife on the neck of the

first informant by threatening him that they belong to Kishor

Makadwala Gang. He was threatened that since he is a migrator

shifted to District Kolhapur and earning a lot on account of his

profession of labour supply, he should regularly pay ransom ( hapta)

to the said gang. Meanwhile, they drove his car at a distance of 4 to

5 k.m's. Later, another Scorpio Jeep came over there from which 3

to 4 unknown persons alighted. All of them took the first informant

in the dark of the night through muddy fields simultaneously

assaulting him. He was robbed of gold chain, gold ring and cash of

Rs.25,000/-. They had also snatched his Aadhar Card, PAN Card

and ATM Card as well as Mobile handset.

4. Later on, he was taken to a remote place towards Chandgad

direction in their respective vehicles. He was made to sit in a cattle

shed. One of the person who was called as Kishor by the other

4 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

assailants took out ATM Card of the first informant and asked him

it's PIN number. By using the said ATM Card, other accused had

withdrawn cash from the ATM. After kidnapping, he was detained

overnight in the said cattle shed and was threatened to pay a ransom

of Rs.5,00,000/- then only they would leave him at Kolhapur. The

first informant informed them that he would seek help of his friend

at Ichalkaranji and then he would pay the ransom. Accordingly,

friend of the first informant - viz: Gautam Kamble was contacted

and the first informant was forced to pretend his urgent need of

Rs.50,000/- and Gautam Kamble was asked to come near Mayur

Petrol Pump, High Way Road at Gokul Shirgaon. Accordingly,

Gautam Kamble, who was unaware of the episode, arrived at the

said Petrol Pump around 11.30 p.m who could manage only 40,000

rupees. The said amount was taken by the accused.

5. Subsequently, they dropped the first informant near Islampur.

His Vista Car along with his mobile, ATM Card and an amount of

Rs.1,000/- was returned to him. They threatened him not to

disclose the said incident to anyone, else, they would kill him.

When the first informant checked his mobile, he was shocked to

realize that by using his ATM Card, they had withdrawn

5 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

Rs.20,000/- and 21,000/- respectively from the ATM at Chandgad.

Since the applicant was scared, he informed about the incident to

his friend Bhausaheb Jairam Jadhav alias Govinda. Subsequently, a

report came to be lodged on 4th September, 2020.

6. A crime was registered with Gokul Shirgaon Police Station,

Kolhapur. Since it was an organized crime syndicate of Kishor

Makadwala Gang, provisions of MCOC Act came to be invoked.

Apart from the aforesaid sections, sections of the I.P.C viz:

kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping with intent to secretly and

wrongfully confine the first informant, concealing the confinement

of the first informant and extortion by putting in fear of death etc

were invoked.

7. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed.

8. I heard Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned Counsel for the applicant

in Criminal Bail Application No.165 of 2022 namely Vishal

Jaysingh Machle and Criminal Bail Application No.2802 of 2022

namely Irfan Sikandar Shaikh and also Counsel Mr. Satyam

Nimbalkar, for applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.650 of

6 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

2022 namely Rahulsingh Tufansingh Dudhane. I also heard Ms.

Malhotra, learned A.P.P at length.

9. At the outset, Mr. Nikam would argue that the applicants

have been falsely implicated only on the basis of few previous

offences against them, without any material on record to indicate

actual involvement of any of the applicants or sans any description

of any of the applicants given by the first informant in the First

Information Report dated 4th September, 2020. He would argue

that there is a delay of six days which has not been explained by the

prosecution and, therefore, it also creates a doubt as regards

genuineness of the report. He submits that for the first time in his

supplementary statement dated 8 th September, 2020, the first

informant had given description of the assailants.

10. Mr. Nikam would strenuously argue that the so called Test

Identification Parade is in total breach of several pronouncements of

this Court and the Supreme Court as well as guidelines given in the

Criminal Manual and, therefore, it is doubtful whether the

applicants, in fact, were the real culprits in committing the aforesaid

offences. Mr. Nikam, in order to substantiate his contention,

7 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

pointed out that same dummies were summoned at the time of

conducting Test Identification Parade in respect of all the three

applicants which frustrates the very purpose of the Test

Identification Parade. He also invites my attention to the injury

certificate of the first informant who was examined after six days of

the incident. Certificate indicates that the injury is eight to ten days

old which belied the prosecution's case. None of the witnesses

could give description of any of the applicants. The applicants are

behind the bars ever since their arrest in September, 2020 for more

than three and half years. There is no recovery under Section 27 of

the Indian Evidence Act. There is no likelihood of conclusion of the

trial in a reasonable period. As such, he stressed for releasing the

applicants on bail.

11. Mr. Nimbalkar appearing for Rahulsingh Tufansingh

Dudhane spoke in tune with Mr. Nikam. Mr. Nimbalkar would

invite my attention to an important aspect in respect of applicant -

Rahulsing Tufansing Dudhane, who, according to him, is a person

of "Sikh" community with a turban and beard. None of the

dummies or non suspects made to stand at the time of the Test

Identification Parade, were of similar description to that of

8 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

Rahulsing Tufansing Dudhane and, therefore, even if he was

identified that would frustrate the purpose of the parade since there

is clear breach of the guidelines.

12. On the other hand, Ms. Malhotra, learned A.P.P while

objecting the applications strenuously argued that this being an

organized crime syndicate of Kishor Makadwala Gang having

history of several cases, in case of release of the applicants, there is

every likelihood of repeating similar kind of offences as well as

threats to the first informant and the prosecution witnesses.

Learned A.P.P has placed on record a chart of Gokul Shirgaon Police

Station indicating complicity of the applicants in various offences in

the past as well as the extract of CDR depicting the locations of the

applicants at the time of committing the offence.

13. Heard Mr. Thengal, learned Counsel for the Intervener who

spoke in tune with the learned A.P.P.

14. Admittedly, there is a delay of six days in lodging an First

Information Report. The alleged incident had occurred between

the intervening night of 28th August, 2020 and 29th August, 2020.

9 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

It is the contention of the prosecution that the first informant was

under fear and was shocked due to the incident in question, a delay

has occurred which is quite obvious. The record reveals that even

after six days i.e on 4th September, 2020, the first informant could

not give description of any of the applicants. The First Information

Report dated 4th September, 2020 though furnishes all the details of

the incident right from his kidnapping by the applicant, snatching of

his belongings including cash and gold ornaments as well as

withdrawing cash from ATM by using his ATM cards but, except by

stating that during their talks, they were referring to Kishor

Makadwala Gang, the first informant has not whispered anything

about the description of any of the applicants or other accused. It

appears that thereafter on 8 th September, 2020, the first informant,

for the first time, described the miscreants, more particularly, one of

the accused was "Sikh". This is significant in light of the Test

Identification Parade conducted by the prosecution.

15. Police Sub Inspector attached to Gokul Shirgaon Police

Station had addressed a communication to the Sub Divisional

Officer, Karveer Taluka, Kolhapur on 4th December, 2020 as regards

Test Identification Parade which was conducted by the Tehsildar on

10 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

19th November, 2020 i.e more than two months after alleged date of

the incident. Panchanama in respect of the Test Identification Parade

annexed along with the record reveals several discrepancies and

shortcomings indicating several irregularities and illegalities in view

of several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as in breach of the

guidelines prescribed in Criminal Manual.

16. It is needless to go into all the minute details at this stage,

nevertheless, few important points need to be highlighted which

would, prima facie, expose the vital discrepancies and lacunae in

prosecution's case.

17. Chart annexed with the Test Identification Parade drawn by

Tehsildar depicts that the ratio of the suspects and non suspects

(dummies) has not been followed. Panchanama does not indicate

description and age of the dummies. The most crucial aspect is that

the same dummies have been used for conducting Test Identification

Parade in respect of all the applicants. It appears that for conducting

Test Identification Parade in the first round, thirteen dummies were

made to stand in a queue and, therefore, out of five accused three

accused were asked to stand amongst them as per their choice. It

11 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

appears that the suspects were asked to change their clothes, if they

so wish. One of the panch witness namely Gorakhnath Dinkar

Gurav was sent to bring the identifying witnesses. It is not clear

from the panchanama whether the identifying witness viz: Gautam

D. Kamble who is the friend of the first informant had an occasion

to witness suspects after the incident and before conducting the Test

Identification Parade. This is for the simple reason that there is

nothing on record to show that after their arrests, the applicants

were brought to the Court for the purpose of remand in veiled

condition. It is not clear whether the applicants were kept '

parda'. Panchanama does reveal that Gautam D. Kamble and the

first informant identified the applicants, however, the Test

Identification parade itself is in clear breach of guidelines of the

Criminal Manual. It would be difficult to accept the same as a

genuine Test Identification Parade.

18. The most glaring aspect is in respect of Rahulsing Dudhane,

who is admittedly a "Sikh" by religion having beard and turban.

Panchanama of Test Identification Parade nowhere indicates that the

dummies placed along with applicant - Rahulsing were of similar

description, meaning thereby, with beard and turban so that the

12 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

identifying witness could correctly identify the applicant as one of

the suspect.

19. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case of

Gireesan Nair and others Vs. State of Kerala,1 having taken survey

of several decisions, Supreme Court concluded that there was an

occasion for the witnesses to see the accused from the very

beginning as the accused were photographed, videographed and

were shown to the witnesses. In the said case, the witness had an

occasion to see the suspects before conducting the Test

Identification Parade. Test Identification Parade was conducted

much after filing application for remand. The accused were

remanded to Police Custody. The Supreme Court observed that

witnesses were deliberately taken to the Police Custody to facilitate

them to identify the suspects. It would be apposite to extract

paragraphs 33 to 36 which read thus;

"33. It is significant to maintain a healthy ratio between suspects and non suspects during a TIP. If rules to that effect are provided in Prison Manuals or if an appropriate authority has issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP is under a compelling

1 (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 180

13 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

obligation to mandatorily maintain the prescribed ratio. While conducting a TIP, it is a sine qua non that the non -suspects should be of the same age- group and should also have similar physical features (size, weight, color, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries etc.) to that of the suspects. The Officer concerned overseeing the TIP should also record such physical features before commencing the TIP proceeding. This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 and Ravi V. State, (2007) 15 SCC 372.

34. It is for the prosecution to prove that a TIP was conducted in a fair manner and that all necessary measures and precautions were taken before conducting the TIP. Thus, the burden is not on the defence. Instead, it is on the prosecution (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra).

35. We will now consider the three major contentions raised by the Appellants before us, being:

(i) the credibility of the eye witnesses who participated in the TIP to identify the accused;

(ii) delay in conducting the TIP; and

(iii) legality of the TIP and the presence of the IO during the conduct of the TIP.

14 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

We will now consider each of these submissions.

Re: Credibility of the eyewitnesses who participated in the TIP to identify the accused:

36. PW 3, in his deposition before the Sessions Court, stated that:

"Prior to the date of identification parade, I had been to the Crime Branch office on different days

(Q) Were there 10-18 accused at time of first parade.

(A) So many people were there.

(Q)Were some of the accused shown to you from the Crime Branch Office.

(A) They were shown".

(Q) Were some more of the accused were shown to you before going to the 2nd parade

(A) Yes".

20. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that non

suspects were of the same age group having similar physical

features, size, weight, colour, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries etc.

Thus, it can be said to be an empty formality of conducting the Test

Identification Parade.

15 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

21. In case of Irfan Sikandar Shaikh and Rahulsing Tufansing

Dudhane, same dummies were placed in a row which is in clear

breach of the guidelines on Test Identification Parade.

22. This Court (Coram: C.V. Bhadang, J.) in case of Jadya Alias

Paigambar Tayyub Mulani Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2 granted

bail to the applicant mainly on the ground that two accused were

included in the TIP together and same dummies were used which

may have some effect on the acceptability of the TIP.

23. In case of Ramcharan Bhudiram Gupta Vs. The State of

Maharashtra3, it is observed thus;

"17. In order to make identification evidence beyond reproach, it is high time that an end is put to the practice of holding of identification at police station and identification parades instead are held in jail. This practice would not only enable the police to wash the stigma of showing suspects prior to their identification; a stigma which more than often is unfounded, but has manifold other advantages. Jails have a large population these days. It would be easy there to find persons similar to the suspects sought to be put for identification. Such similar persons have to mixed with the suspects at the time of identification.

2 Criminal Bail Application No.1576 of 2021 3 1996 (1) Bom. C.R. 190

16 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

The identification in jail would not only actually be free from any taint or suspicion but equally importantly it would also appear to be so. It would in still a sense of confidence both in the minds of the suspects sought to be put for identification as well as the court. There are some other infirmities too in the evidence of identification, which render it unworthy of acceptance.

Firstly, the procedure of holding the identification as laid down in the Criminal Manual issued by the high Court of Judicature, Appellate Side, Bombay has not been followed. The Manual provides that not more than two suspects at a time should be put for identification in one parade but, in the instant case, three persons viz, the appellants and Medha Jagganath Dhobi were put up together for identification in one parade.

In fact, the Executive Magistrate went to the extent of saying that "I am not aware about the High Court Criminal Manual about the method of holding the parade." This is a shocking state of affairs. We expect that in future, it would be ensured that the Magistrates who conduct identification proceedings, are at least aware of the High Court Criminal Manual which deals with the manner in which they are to be conducted. We would like to emphasise that little value can be given to the identification held in breach of provisions contained in criminal Manual of this court. Secondly, in the identification memo, there is no mention of the fact that dummies mixed with the appellants bore similar

17 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

physical appearance and hence, we do no think it safe to believe the Magistrate when he deposed to this effect in the trial court. Once the court entertains doubts about dummies bearing similar physical appearance being mixed with the appellants, at the time of their test identification, the court has no option but, to reject the evidence of identification.

18. The fall out of the aforesaid discussion is that the identification evidence against the appellants does not inspire confidence and consequently, both the appellants have to be acquitted on all the counts.

19. However, one question which remains is as to whether the appellants can be convicted in respect of the property recovered at their pointing out. In our judgment, the answer to this question has to be in the affirmative and the appellants can be safely be convicted under Section 411, IPC".

24. Criminal Manual contemplates the procedure for holding Test

Identification Parade. Clauses (iv), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (ix) are

of vital importance which read thus;

"(iv) The parade should then be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it.

(v) If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be at least half a dozen persons placed in the parade. If two accused

18 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade. Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade. Normally, the Police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less the same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified. It is desirable that innocent persons to be mixed should be different for each such parade.

(vi) No person, other than the persons in the parade, and the two respectable persons, should be allowed to remain in the room where the identification proceedings are being held. In particular, all police officers and constables should be asked to withdraw themselves completely from the room. There is no objection to any of them remaining outside the room or otherwise at hand, ready to be called up in case the accused creates trouble, or in case of emergency. They should, however, not be visible from the room or the place where the parade is being held.

(vii) After the parade is arranged, one of the two respectable persons should be sent up to bring the accused from the lock-up. Care should be taken to see that when the accused is being brought from the lock up, the identifying witnesses do not have an opportunity of seeing him. They should be kept in quite a different room, out of sight of the lock-up.





                                                                         19 of 26


                                                          2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc



                (viii) At     this   stage,    the      Executive

Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should commence to write the memorandum. It should include:-

(a) the place at which and the date on which, parade is being held and the time at which it was commenced;

(b) the names, ages, occupations and the full addresses of the two respectable persons;

(c) the names and the approximate ages of the persons standing in the parade, mentioning clearly, one below the other, in numerical order their positions in the parade (which positions they should not be allowed afterwards to alter);

(d) the fact that no persons, other than those, in the parade and the two respectable persons, were allowed to remain in the room and that all police officers and constables were asked to withdraw;

and

(e) that respectable person so and so fetched the accused from the lock-up, and that the identifying witnesses were in a different room, so that they could not see him being brought from the lock-up to the identification room.

(ix) when the accused is brought, the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should ask him to take whatever place he likes in the parade. The place which he selects should be noted in the memorandum. For example, he may select to stand between numbers 3 and 4 in the parade; and it should then be noted that he took his position between Nos. 3 and 4 in the parade. The original

20 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

numbering of the persons in the parade should not be altered simply because the accused has now joined in.

(x) the accused should then be asked if he wants to make any alteration in his dress. He may change his cap or coat, or he may decide to put on (or remove) a cap or coat. He should be allowed to do this, and that fact should be noted in the memorandum. If he does not wish to change his dress, then that fact, too, should be noted in the memorandum.

(xi) Then one of the respectable persons should be asked to fetch the first identifying witness from the room in which he may be sitting. When the witness arrives, the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should question him and ascertain from him whether he had an opportunity to see the culprit at any time subsequent to the offence of after the arrest. He may either record the statement separately or make reference to that statement in his memorandum. The witness should then be asked to view the parade carefully and see whether he would be able to identify the person, who, for instance; stabbed him or whom he saw firing a short from a revolver, or whom he saw inside the flat in which a burglary may have taken place, or, as the case may be. The identifying witness will then go up and look closely at the parade. If he identifies any person, he should be asked to go forward and touch that person, and not merely to point him out from a distance. This is necessary in

21 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

order that there may be no doubt afterwards as to whom exactly he had identified. The fact that the identifying witness identified the accused, should be noted in the memorandum (along with the name of the accused) and, of course, also if he failed to identify him or identified a wrong person. It should further be noted whether the witness identified the accused straightway or after some hesitation or after first pointing out a wrong person and then correcting himself and pointing out the accused. When this is over, the identifying witness should be asked to go away into a different room and not to contact the remaining identifying witnesses. He may even be asked to go away".

25. It can thus be seen that the ratio as contemplated in clause (v)

has not been maintained, in the sense, more than two accused were

placed in similar Test Identification Parade by the Tehsildar. There

is also a discrepancy in so for as applicant Rahulsingh Dudhane's

appearance and description is concerned which is apparent that

there was no match. Non suspects were not of the description of the

applicant who admittedly is Sikh by religion with beard and turban.

It is not clear whether guideline in (vii) has been strictly followed or

otherwise.

26. Last but not the least, the prosecution in it's affidavit in reply

tendered by one Sanket Satish Gosavi, Sub Divisional Police Officer

22 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

had, several times referred the said organized syndicate as " Kishor

Makadwala Gang" which has a dubious distinction of committing

offence of kidnapping, intimidation etc but the sanction order dated

2nd March, 2021 accorded by Additional Director General of Police

nowhere indicates that the said Gang is known as " Kishor

Makadwala Gang". Though it reveals the name of Kishor Dadappa

Mane, sanction order does not reveal any such gang by name

"Kishor Makadwala Gang". It is needless to comment more on the

aspect while considering an application for bail.

27. In so far as rigour of Section 21 (4) (b) is concerned, as

already discussed, the applicants have been incarcerated for more

than three and half years ever since their arrests. Though, there are

antecedents to their discredit, that itself will not restrict the powers

of this Court to release them on bail in view of the shortcomings

and lacunae stated hereinabove. The apprehension of the

prosecution, in view of the past record of the applicants, can be

taken care of by imposing certain stringent conditions.

28. Needless to state that these are prima facie observations sans

merits of the case only to the extent of considering an application

23 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

for bail. The trial Court shall not get influenced with the

observations made hereinabove.

29. Now, to the order.

:ORDER:

(a) Applications are allowed.

(b) Applicants viz: Vishal Jaysingh Machle, Rahulsing

Tufansing Dudhane and Irfan Sikandar Shaikh shall

be released on executing a P.R bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in

Special MCOC Case No.47 of 2021 in connection

with C.R. No.201 of 2020 registered with Gokul

Shirgaon Police Station, District Kolhapur for the

offences punishable under Sections 364 (A), 365, 368,

386, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C and

Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3(2), 3 (4) of the MCOC Act.

(c) The applicants shall attend the Gokul Shirgaon

Police Station on every Tuesday and Saturday between

24 of 26

2-BA-165-2022 AND 2 OTHERS.doc

9.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m except on the days when they

would be required to attend the Court;

(d) The applicants shall attend all the dates in the

trial Court;

(e) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence

or attempt to influence or contact any of the witnesses

or persons concerned with this case.

(f) The applicants shall surrender their passports, if

any, to the Investigating Officer immediately.

(g) After release on bail, the applicants shall not

indulge in any offence;

(h) The applicants shall not enter into Kolhapur

District except for attending the Police Station and the

trial Court;