Bombay High Court
Vidyasagar @ Rajesh @ Lajya Namdev ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:3696
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2023
Vidyasagar @ Rajesh @ Lajya
Namdev Chavan ..Appellant
VS.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Raju Kachru Garad ..Respondents
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Mr. Amit Icham, for the appellant.
Mr. Subir Sarkar, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 24, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP
and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. This is an appeal challenging the order of the Special
Judge rejecting the application for bail filed by the appellant
in connection with C.R. No. 125 of 2018 dated 23/07/2018
registered with Ichalkaranji police station for the offences
punishable under sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149,
201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 ("IPC", for short),
under section 3(2)(VA) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under
sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3 (5) of the Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereafter 'MCOCA', for short).
The FIR is dated 23/07/2018. The date of the incident is
23/07/2018. The appellant is arrested on 23/07/2018.
There are in all 7 accused. The appellant is the accused
no.5.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused
followed the deceased who was on his motorcycle. The
accused were upset as the deceased did not join their gang
and instead, was reporting their activities to the police
station. 4-5 accused were armed with the sharp edged
weapons with which they assaulted the deceased. There
are 2 eye-witnesses. Both the eye-witnesses say that so far
as the present appellant is concerned, he was not armed
with any weapon. One of the eye-witness does not attribute
any role to the appellant except for the fact that he was
present with the other accused. The other eye-witness Raju
Patil has attributed role to the appellant that he had held
the hands of the deceased when the co-accused had
assaulted the deceased with the sharp edged weapons.
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
4. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 appointed by this Court vehemently
opposed the appeal. Learned APP submitted that there are
eye-witnesses to the incident and specific role had been
assigned to the appellant to show his complicity. Learned
counsel for the respondent no.2, apart from submitting that
eye-witness has stated about the appellant's active
involvement also submits that the rigours of section 21 of
MCOC Act will apply in the present case. It is the
submission of learned counsel that section 149 of IPC has
been invoked. From the appellant's role, he submits that it
is clear that the appellant shared a common object with the
other co-accused in commission of crime under section 302
of IPC.
5. As indicated earlier, the assault on the deceased was
by the co-accused who were armed with the sharp edged
weapon. The appellant was present at the spot. One of the
eye-witness said that the appellant held the hands of the
deceased while other co-accused assaulted him. The
appellant was arrested on 23/07/2018 and is now in custody
for more than 5 and half years. I am informed that even
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
charge has not been framed. The trial is likely to take a
long time to conclude. No doubt the rigours of section 21 of
MCOC Act apply in the present case as the provisions of
MCOC is invoked. So far as the appellant is concerned,
there are no criminal antecedents reported against the
appellant. This is the first offence registered against him in
respect of the gang of which the co-accused Adarsh
Germany is the gang leader. Though the appellant was
present at the time of assault, prima facie, it appears
doubtful whether the present appellant is part of the
organized crime syndicate. Considering the role of the
appellant coupled with the fact that the appellant is in
custody for more than 5 and half years with no possibility of
trial concluding anytime soon and as there are no criminal
antecedents reported against the appellant, I am inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail by imposing conditions. Long
incarceration coupled with the other facts indicated in my
opinion are sufficient to get over the rigours of section 21 of
MCOC Act. As there are no criminal antecedents reported, it
is unlikely that the applicant will commit the any offence
while on bail. Hence, the following order.
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed.
(b) The appellant- Vidyasagar @ Rajesh @ Lajya
Namdev Chavan in connection with C.R. No. 125 of
2018 registered with Ichalkaranji police station shall be
released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of
Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like
amount.
(c) The appellant shall attend the investigating
officer of the concerned police station once in a month
on first Monday of every month between 11.00 a.m.
and 1.00 p.m.
(d) The appellant shall not reside in Hatkanangale-
Taluka after being released on bail, till the conclusion
of the trial or subject to further modification of the
conditions by the trial Court at any stage.
(e) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The
applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(f) the appellant shall not tamper with the witnesses.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
7. I appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.
Urmila Ingale 906-apeal-877-23.doc
Subir Sarkar, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of
respondent No.2 in this proceeding who was appointed by
Legal Services Authority.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Urmila P. Ingale
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/01/2024 18:23:40
