Bombay High Court
Vikrant @ Manya Umesh Kambale vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 February, 2024
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2024:BHC-AS:5818
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1962 OF 2023
Vikrant alias
Manya Umesh Kamble ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Rahul K. Dhaygude a/w Mr. Dipak Y. Jadhav, Advocates for the
Applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Shailesh Chavan for Complainant/Intervenor.
PSI, Mr. Shivaji B. Jadhav, Satara City Police Station, present.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY 2024
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Dhaygude, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, Ms. Shinde, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State
and Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/Original
Informant.
2. This is a regular Bail Application preferred under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are as
follows:-
1. C. R. No. 286 of 2021
2. Date of registration of F.I.R. 6th April 2021
3. Name of Police Station Satara City
4. Section/s invoked 302, 201 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
5. Date of incident 5th April 2021 at 11.45 p.m. to 6th
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
April 2021 at 9.45 a.m.
6. Date of arrest 6th April 2021
7. Date of filing Charge-sheet 2nd July 2021
3. The prosecution case, as reflected in the statements of witnesses
annexed to the Charge-sheet, is that the deceased and the Applicant's
sister-Bhavana were in a relationship with each other. In February 2018,
said Bhavana left the house and therefore an N.C. bearing No.245 of
2018 was lodged on 25th February 2018. At that time, Laxmi Kamble,
mother of the present Applicant told sister of the deceased that Bhavana
had left the house because of the deceased. Thereafter, said Bhavana
got married to another person in the year 2019. It appears that even
after marriage of Bhavana, the deceased used to contact her. In fact, the
statement of Bhavana shows that before her marriage the deceased
under the influence of alcohol used to visit her workplace and would
harass her. The said statement further shows that said Bhavana in fact
married one Suraj and the said marriage is a love marriage. Statement
of Bhavana further shows that after her marriage, deceased all along
used to contact said Bhavana and her husband-Suraj and he used to tell
her that he is having lot of money and that her husband i.e. Suraj is a
beggar and therefore she should leave her husband. The statement
clearly further shows that said Bhavana and her husband were harassed
by the deceased continuously.
2/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
4. As per the prosecution case, there are total 5 accused involved in
the present case. According to the prosecution, Accused persons have
murdered the deceased. The prosecution case is of circumstantial
evidence. There is no eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution case
is on the basis of 'last seen together', extra-judicial confession, a phone
call of Accused No.5 made to mother of the Applicant i.e. Jayashree
Umesh Kamble, the statement of Jayashree i.e. mother of the Applicant
and that at about 1.20 a.m., on 6th April 2021 witness-Vishal Arun
Kuchekar has seen the Applicant near the place of incident.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. He submitted that
although there are some circumstances, which are incriminating,
however, the chain is not complete. According to him, although at one
point of time, he was seen together with the Deceased and Accused
No.2 - Sangram Babu Ranpise, however, he was thereafter not seen with
the deceased and therefore this is not a case of last seen together.
6. In any case, he submitted that the incident in question occurred
on 5th April 2021, the date of arrest is 6th April 2021 and even after
almost three years, there is no progress in the trial. He submitted that
Charge has been framed on 6th October 2022 and in spite of that, not a
single witness has been examined till February of 2024. He therefore
prayed for granting bail.
3/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
7. On the other hand, Ms. Shinde, learned APP as well as Mr.
Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/Informant
submitted that another learned Single Judge by Order dated 1st
February 2024 has rejected Second Bail Application filed by Accused
No.2- Sangram Babu Ranpise. It is their submission that the
circumstances against the present Applicant as well as said Sangram
Ranpise are similar and therefore, bail should not be granted. They
pointed out certain observations in the Order dated 1st February 2024,
pointing out that the trial could not be conducted as an adjournment
was sought by the Accused. They also pointed out statements of several
witnesses showing that there are incriminating circumstances against
the present Applicant. They also pointed out that there are antecedents.
They pointed out that there is one N.C. lodged on 23rd May 2020 by
deceased against the present Applicant and other co-accused and there
is one F.I.R. dated 5th September 2018 lodged by the deceased against
the Applicant and others under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506, 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860. These N.C. and F.I.R. are relating to the same
subject namely that the deceased used to harass the sister and the
brother-in-law of the Applicant and of earlier relationship between the
sister of the Applicant and the deceased because of which there used to
be altercations between these two families.
8. Ms. Shinde, learned APP also pointed out that there is another
4/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.213 of 2016 registered with Satara City Police
Station under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 however she
submitted that as far as the said C.R. No.213 of 2016 is concerned, the
Applicant is enlarged on bail therein.
9. This is a case completely based on circumstantial evidence, there
is no eye-witness, the Charge-sheet is filed on 2nd July 2021. The
Charge is framed on 6th October 2022 and till date not a single witness
has been examined. As per the Charge-sheet, there are 38 witnesses
proposed to be examined.
10. It is the contention of Ms. Shinde, learned APP and Mr. Chavan,
learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/Informant that the delay
has occurred as the Accused are taking adjournments. Mr. Chavan,
learned Counsel submitted that when the two prosecution witnesses
were present, learned Counsel appearing for the co-Accused, Sangram
Ranpise, had sought time. In any case, it is clear that the trial is not
progressing. Therefore, the Applicant cannot be indefinitely kept
incarcerated.
11. It is true that there are some incriminating circumstances against
the present Applicant and there is also a motive for committing the
crime. It is also true that for grant or denial of bail, the nature of crime
has a significance relevance. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated
the factors to be taken into consideration in its decision in the case of
5/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P1. The relevant paragraph no. 25 of the said
decision is reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. For grant or denial of bail, the "nature of crime" has a huge
relevancy. The key considerations which govern the grant of bail
were elucidated in the judgment of this Court in Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] ,
wherein it has been observed as under : (SCC p. 602, para 4)
"4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be
attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at
this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and
not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations
being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter
of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.""
(Emphasis added)
12. This case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-
witness to the incident in question. The accused is not a habitual
offender and the motive for the offence in question appears to be anger
1 (2022) 8 SCC 559
6/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
against the deceased who was continuously interfering and disturbing
the marital life of the sister of the accused.
13. It is an admitted position that Charge-sheet has been filed on 2nd
July 2021. There are 38 witnesses proposed to be examined by the
prosecution as per the Charge-sheet. The trial is likely to take a
considerably long time.
14. As far as the antecedents are concerned, the same are arising out
of the same dispute concerning continuous harassment by deceased of
the sister and the brother-in-law of the Applicant. As far as crime
registered in 2016, the Applicant has already been granted bail.
15. In this case, there are total five accused, three of whom have
already granted bail by following Orders:
Accused No.5-Mr. Chetan Nandkumar Aawale by a learned Single
Judge (Coram: Revati Mohite-Dere, J.) by Order dated 21st
September 2021 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 2902 of
2021.
Accused No.4- Mr. Umesh Kambale by a learned Single Judge
(Coram: V.G. Bisht, J.) by Order dated 20th January 2022 passed
in Criminal Bail Application No. 3667 of 2021.
Accused No.2- Mr. Tejas Nandkumar Awale by a learned Single
Judge (Coram: Prakash D. Naik, J.) by Order dated 23rd
December 2022 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 1159 of
2022.
16. Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/
7/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
Informant has very heavily relied on the Order of learned Single Judge
dated 1st February 2024 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 2088
of 2023 rejecting the Bail Application of Accused No. 3- Sangram Babu
Ranpise. However, it is to be noted that said Criminal Bail Application
No. 2088 of 2023 is the Second Bail Application filed by said Accused
No.3- Sangram Babu Ranpise. First Bail Application filed by the Accused
No.3- being Criminal Bail Application No. 748 of 2022 was rejected by
Order dated 23rd December 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Thereafter the Second Bail Application was rejected by said Order dated
1st February 2024 passed by learned Single Judge inter alia observing
that there is no change in the circumstances to entertain the Second
Bail Application. It is well settled that the parameters of the
consideration of the First Bail Application and the Second Bail
Application are totally different. Therefore, reliance on said Order
dated 1st February 2024 of the learned Single Judge is of not much
significance.
17. Mr. Dhaygude, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant after
taking instructions states that as most of the witnesses are from Satara
District, the Applicant will reside outside District-Satara and that he will
reside at the residence of his material uncle i.e. Datta Pujari, 226,
Mangalwar Peth, Pune.
18. The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of flight.
8/10
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 10:40:58 :::
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
19. Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing
stringent conditions.
20. In view thereof, the following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Applicant-Vikrant alias Manya Umesh Kamble be released
on bail in connection with C.R. No.286 of 2021 registered with the
Satara Police Station, Taluka- Satara, District- Satara on his
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount.
(b) The Applicant shall not enter the Satara District after being
released on bail, except for reporting to the Investigating Officer if
called and for attending the trial.
(c) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish his cell
phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer
and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.
(d) The Applicant shall report to the Juna Bazar, Gadital Police
Station, Taluka-Pune, District-Pune twice in a week on Sunday and
Wednesday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. for six months and
thereafter once every week on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m.
and 1.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial. The Police Inspector
of Juna Bazar Gadital Police Station, Taluka- Pune, District- Pune
to communicate details thereof to the Investigating Officer.
6 BA 1962.23.doc
Dusane
(e) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the
facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.
(f) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not
contact or influence the Complainant or any witnesses in any
manner.
(g) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The Applicant
shall co-operate with the Trial Court and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments thereat.
(h) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the
Investigating Officer.
21. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima facie
and the trial Court shall decide the case on its merits uninfluenced by
the observations made in this Order.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
