Bombay High Court
Ravi S/O Sanjay Sadanshiv And 4 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 2 August, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:8543
(1) 27.aba.494.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.494 OF 2024
Ravi s/o Sanjay Sadanshiv and others
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Akot
City, District Akola and another
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J. M. Gandhi, Advocate for applicants.
Ms. H. N. Prabhu, APP for respondent No.1/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 02/08/2024
1. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of
police in connection with Crime No.169/2024
registered with Police Station Akot City, District Akola
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 for the Indian Penal Code, the applicants
approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.
2. All the applicants are serving as a Police
Constables at District Akola. On 16.04.2024 at about
8.42 p.m. one Sukhdev Mahadev Haramkar, resident
of Sukli, who is the uncle of the deceased Govardhan
Ganesh Haramkar had lodged the First Information
Report alleging that on 15.01.2024, he was along
with his nephew who was arrested by one Shri Rajesh
Jaware, the Sub Inspector of Police Station, Akot and
was carried to the Police Station Akot thereafter, he
and three Police Constables had brought the said
Govardhan at village Sukli and the houses of the said
(2) 27.aba.494.2024
complainant and Govardhan were searched. Nothing
was found and on being asked as to why the houses
were searched, he was brutally beaten and
thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Police
Station, Akot. In the Police Station again he was
brutally beaten and thereafter, he was taken to the
hospital i.e. Vighnaharta Hospital and during the
course of treatment, he succumbed to the death. On
the basis of the said report, police have registered
the crime against the present applicants.
3. Learned Counsel Mr. Gandhi for the
applicants submitted that with the false allegations,
the present applicants are implicated in the alleged
offence, in fact, no such incident has taken place. He
submitted that the deceased had sustained the
injuries in an accident, which took place on
10.01.2024 and due to the accidental injuries, he was
admitted in the hospital and thereafter, succumbed to
the death. He submitted that regarding the said
incident, the statement of the informant was
recorded on 20.01.2024 wherein he has specifically
stated that the deceased met with an accident and
therefore, he was admitted in the hospital and during
treatment, he succumbed to the death. He further
stated before the investigating agency that the
deceased was inhabit of drinking liquor.
4. The statements of the another witnesses
namely Leela Ganesh Haramkar, Laxman Sukhdev
(3) 27.aba.494.2024
Haramkar and others were also recorded from which
it revealed that the deceased met with an accident
and sustained the injuries and due to the said
accidental injuries, he succumbed to the death. He
further submitted that as far as the involvement of
the present applicants is concerned, the applicants
have filed rejoinder and on affidavit they have stated
that at the relevant time, the applicant No.1 was on
weekly off i.e. on 11.01.2024 and had secured leave
on 13.01.2024 and 14.01.2024 for his urgent family
affair. Likewise, the applicant No.2 was also on
weekly off on 15.01.2024 and applicant No.3 was on
weekly off on 12.01.2024. The applicant Nos.4 and 5
were also on weekly off on 13.01.2024 and applicant
No.4 has taken leave on 14.01.2024. He submitted
that these documents and the various statements are
recorded sufficiently show that afterthought i.e. after
three months, the alleged FIR was lodged by the
informant and the allegations are baseless and false.
The falsity of the allegation revealed from the various
statements of the witnesses. As far as the custodial
interrogation of the present applicants is concerned,
which is not required. In view of that, they be
protected by granting anticipatory bail. He submitted
that if the applicants are sent behind bars, their
entire carrier would be ruined and considering the
same, they be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
5. In support of his contention, learned
Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Abdul
(4) 27.aba.494.2024
Hamit Ansari and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 3541 (1)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the
gravity of the offence and directions were issued to
release the appellant on bail if appellants surrender
before the police within two weeks. He submitted
that such directions can be issued to the investigating
agency and the applicants are ready to surrender
before the investigating agency.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed
the said application on the ground that all the
applicants are Police Constables and the allegations
against them are that on suspicion that the deceased
is involved in a robbery. They have taken him in the
custody and assaulted brutally thereafter, taken him
to the hospital and while taking treatment, he
succumbed to the death. She submitted that during
investigation, the investigating agency has recovered
the CCTV hard disk from the Police Station Akot City
thereafter, various statements are recorded. The
expert opinions are obtained from which it reveals
that the injuries which are found on the person of the
deceased are not possible by the accident. She
submitted that the various statements recorded
during the investigation shows that there are eye
witnesses who have seen the deceased was assaulted
in the Police Station by these applicants and other
co-accused. She submitted that the consideration for
grant of bail and grant of anticipatory bail are
(5) 27.aba.494.2024
different. In support of her contention she placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others in arising out of
SLP(Crl.) No.9816/2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court had considered the consideration for grant of
bail and observed that but this criteria, while dealing
with the question of granting bail, would not apply in
a case of custodial death, where police officials are
arraigned as an accused. Such alleged offences are
of grave and serious in nature. The role of the Court
in dealing with the plea for bail in offences involving
police officials has been explained by this Court in the
case of State of Jharkhand vs. Sandeep Kumar
[2024 INSC 179] and prayed for rejection of the
application.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the
applicants and learned APP for the State, perused the
investigation papers from which it reveals that the
crime is registered against the present applicants on
the basis of report lodged by uncle of the deceased
namely Sukhdev Mahadev Haramkar. On 16.04.2024
wherein he has alleged that the Police Officer Rajesh
Jaware and the present applicants were searching the
deceased and they suspected his involvement in a
crime committed under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code. Thereafter, the deceased was taken into
custody and he was assaulted brutally.
(6) 27.aba.494.2024
8. It is further alleged that the informant was
also assaulted by the present applicants and other
co-accused and deceased was taken to the private
hospital i.e. Vighnaharta Hospital, Akola wherein he
died. Admittedly, prior to the registration of the
crime, the statement of the informant and other
witnesses were recorded wherein they have stated
that deceased met with an accident and due to the
accidental injuries, he succumbed to the death. The
death of the deceased was occurred on 17.01.2024
therefore, the accidental death was registered.
9. During the investigation, the police officials
have received one anonymous letter and on the basis
of the anonymous letter, investigation was carried
out. During the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the statement of informant
Sukhdev Mahadev Haramkar, wherein he has
narrated that the Police Officer Rajesh Jaware taken
the custody of his nephew on 16.01.2024 and he
was assaulted in presence of the villagers and taken
him to the Police Station and was assaulted. The
deceased has sustained the grievous injuries and
therefore, he was taken to the hospital and during
treatment, he succumbed to the death. The inquest
panchnama which was drawn shows that there were
several injuries observed on the person of the
deceased and the death of the deceased was shock
due to the multiple blunt injuries. The postmortem
report shows in all 25 injuries are found on the
(7) 27.aba.494.2024
person of the deceased. Considering the earlier
statement that deceased has sustained the injuries
due to the accident, the opinion was sought from the
medical expert wherein the medical expert has
opined that these injuries are not possible due to the
accident. The said opinion is a part of the
investigation papers. Thereafter, the panchnama
regarding spot of incident has also drawn.
10. During investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded various statements of the
witnesses, from which it is revealed that the
deceased was taken to the hospital on 17.01.2024 in
a private hospital and where he was succumbed to
the death. The statements of the witnesses further
shows that the witnesses are acquainted with the
Police Officer Shri. Jaware. Shri. Jaware has visited
the house of the deceased as well as the informant
and taken the search of the house, but nothing was
found and thereafter, witnesses were also inquired
regarding the mobile phone and some of the
witnesses were also assaulted by the Police Officer as
well as his colleagues. The informant was also
referred to the hospital and he was treated there.
11. The statement of Deepak Dilip Pawar
discloses that he came out from the work and at
about 5.30 p.m. PSI Jaware, Manish Kulat who is
applicant herein came on two wheeler and inquired
with the deceased Govardhan and the informant. He
(8) 27.aba.494.2024
further stated that PSI Jaware disclosed to him that
Govardhan i.e. deceased has disclosed his name and
therefore, he has to inform about the mobile and
where it was kept or hidden and he as well as the
family members of the deceased were assaulted.
Thus, various statements were recorded by the
Investigating Officer to show that the deceased was
assaulted by taking into the custody on suspecting
that he is involved in a robbery case.
12. The statement of the Medical Practitioner
Dr. Vishal Prakash Ingole was also recorded from his
statement it reveals that on 17.01.2024 he received
the phone call of Police Officer Jaware who was
inquired about the patient by name Govardhan i.e.
the deceased and regarding his condition and also
disclosed to him that he has dropped the said patient
in the Vighnaharta Hospital. There are some
statements including the statement of Pramila
Dadarao Tayade, Gangadhar Pundlik Gawade and
Sheikh Salim Sheikh Jamir that the PSI Jaware and
others visited the house of the deceased and taken
the search of his house thereafter, they have taken
both of them in the police vehicle and subsequently,
they came to know that Govardhan succumbed to the
death.
13. Thus, the entire statements of the
witnesses shows that deceased was in the custody of
the Police Officer Jaware and the present applicants.
(9) 27.aba.494.2024
As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for
the applicants that at the relevant time these
applicants were not on duty either they were on
weekly off or on leave is also falsified by the duty
chart which is obtained by the Investigating Officer
which shows that from 07.01.2024 to 17.01.2024
they were on duty.
14. The general diary entry which was taken
on 09.01.2024 also shows that the crime was
registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Police Officer i.e. PSI Jaware and the
Crime Detection Branch Police Constables visited the
bus stand and checked the CCTV footage. After
checking the CCTV footage, they were searching the
deceased Govardhan Haramkar, but he was not found
and therefore, they have searched various places in
search of him. Thus, the general diary entry also
shows that the present applicants and other
co-accused were in search of the deceased. Thus,
the various statements recorded during the
investigation clearly shows that the deceased was in
the custody of the present applicants and other
co-accused and when he was in custody he sustained
the injuries and due to the injuries, he succumbed to
the death. Thus, this case is of a custodial death.
The confidential communication issued also shows
that the confidential inquiry was conducted and from
the said inquiry it reveals that the Police Officer
Jaware and the present applicants are involved in
(10) 27.aba.494.2024
taking custody of the deceased and thereafter assault
on the deceased. The statement of some of the
witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which also shows the
involvement of the present applicants in custodial
death of the deceased.
15. Thus, prima facie case is made out against
the present applicants as far as the their involvement
in the alleged incident is concerned.
16. Learned Counsel for the applicants
vehemently submitted that initially there was an
accidental death registered regarding the death of
the deceased and afterthought, this complaint is filed.
But at this stage, the statements of various
witnesses, opinion of Medical Officer and the
circumstantial evidence sufficiently shows the
involvement of the present applicants in the alleged
offence. There is no dispute as to the fact that the
discretion to grant or refuse him must be exercised
judiciously and in a judicious manner. It is also well
settled that bail is rule and jail is an exception, but at
the same time, the considerations for grant of
anticipatory bail are to be taken into consideration.
The considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are
gravity of the offence, the involvement of the
applicant, the nature of the offence and the
punishment provided for the said offence.
(11) 27.aba.494.2024
Admittedly, the present applicants are involved in the
grievous offence i.e. the custodial death.
17. Learned APP rightly placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (supra) wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court by referring the judgment of State of
Jharkhand vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra) wherein it
is observed that "In the light of these serious
allegations made against no less than a senior police
officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law
enforcement, the High Court ought not to have taken
a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking.
Considering the position held by the respondent,
even if he was suspended from service and the
chargesheet had already been filed against him, the
possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and
the evidence was sufficiently high. That apart, grant
of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of
manipulating the investigation so as to favour an
accused would send out a wrong signal in society. It
would be against public interest." It is further
observed that "No doubt, none of the provisions
under which the respondent is alleged to have
committed offences entail imprisonment in excess of
seven years and most of them were bailable offences.
Ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of
incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would
be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However,
(12) 27.aba.494.2024
the same standard would not be applicable when the
accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer
charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward
the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to
punish the guilty. The 6 respondent is alleged to have
failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer. This
consideration must necessarily weigh in with the
nature of the offences and the possible punishment
therefor. Presumptions and other considerations
applicable to a layperson facing criminal charges may
not carry the same weight while dealing with a police
officer who is alleged to have abused his office."
18. In the case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary
Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Pat 2524 wherein also it is observed by
the Patna High Court that in the kind of serious
allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion
that these petitioner(s) do not deserve privilege of
anticipatory bail and their bail was refused.
19. The aspect of the custodial death is also
considered in the case of Parvat Chandra Mohanty
vs. State of Odisha and another reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 529 wherein it is observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that in the event people holding
public office abuse their position, it becomes a matter
of great public concern. When the police is violator of
the law whose primary responsibility is to protect the
law, the punishment for such violation has to be
(13) 27.aba.494.2024
proportionately stringent so as to have effective
deterrent effect and instill confidence in the society.
20. By referring the earlier Judgment of
Yashwant Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18
SCC 571 the Hon'ble Apex Court held "As the police
in this case are the violators of law, who had the
primary responsibility to protect and uphold law,
thereby mandating the punishment for such violation
to be proportionately stringent so as to have effective
deterrent effect and instill confidence in the society.
It may not be out of context to remind that the motto
of Maharashtra State Police is "Sadrakshnaya
Khalanighrahanaya" (Sanskrit: "To protect good and
to punish evil"), which needs to be respected. Those,
who are called upon to administer the criminal law,
must bear, in mind, that they have a duty not merely
to the individual accused before them, but also to the
State and to the community at large. Such incidents
involving police usually tend to deplete the
confidence in our criminal justice system much more
than those incidents involving private individuals. We
must additionally factor this aspect while imposing an
appropriate punishment on the accused herein."
21. In the light of the above observation, if the
facts of the present case are taken into consideration,
it reveals that the deceased was taken into custody
on suspecting that he is involved in crime under
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, thereafter he
(14) 27.aba.494.2024
was mercilessly beaten and taken to the private
hospital wherein the death of the deceased is caused.
22. The investigation is at initial stage,
considering the role of the present applicants, it
reveals from statements of the various witnesses as
well as the opinion of the expert, no case is made out
for grant of anticipatory bail, in view of that,
application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the
application is rejected.
23. As far as the prayer made by the learned
Counsel for the applicants is concerned that the
applicants are ready to surrender before the
investigating agency, they are at liberty to surrender
before the investigating agency and the bail
application if filed can be considered on its own
merits.
24. The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/08/2024 17:05:42
