Bombay High Court
Siddharth S/O Aadesh Bansod vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 27 September, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:11029
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393 OF 2024
Siddharth s/o Aadesh Bansod,
Age : about 24 Years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o.: Samta Nagar, Ward No.3,
Urjanagar, District Chandrapur ..... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Durgapur,
District Chandrapur.
2. Pankaj s/o Ramesh Watekar,
Aged about adult,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. : Nehru Nagar, Durgapur,
District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. A. C. Jaltare, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. K. R. Lule, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Ms. A. P. Murrey, appointed Counsel for the respondent No.2.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 27.09.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
Judge and Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chandrapur
dated 20.12.2023 below Exhibit 31 by which the application of
the present appellant for grant of bail is rejected.
4. The appellant came to be arrested on 08.11.2022 in
connection with Crime No.189/2022 registered with Police
Station, Durgapur, District Chandrapur for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 427, 120-B, 212
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1989') and Sections 4 and 45 of the
Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
5. As per the allegations against the co-accused that on
07.11.2022 deceased Mahesh Meshram consumed liquor with his
friend namely Lala at Emali Bar at Restaurant, Durgapur and
thereafter, while leaving from Restaurant, the deceased was
attacked by 6 to 7 persons with deadly weapons due to the prior
enmity between them, at the relevant time, deceased attempted
to save himself and ran towards the car, but all accused persons
killed him with deadly weapons. The friend of the deceased tried
to rescue him, but the car was damaged by the accused persons.
As far as present appellant is concerned, it is alleged that he was
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
present and the member of unlawful assembly and in
furtherance of the common object of that assembly, present
appellant and other co-accused eliminated him. It is alleged that
the present appellant took all the accused persons in the car and
helped them to screen themselves from the punishment of the
offence which they have committed.
6. After registration of the crime, the appellant
approached to the learned Special Court for grant of bail which
was rejected, hence this appeal.
7. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Jaltare for the appellant
who submitted that as far as the allegations against the present
appellant is concerned, it is only to the extent that the informant
has disclosed the name of one Bhagirathi while lodging the
report and other 7 to 8 persons who were unknown. During the
investigation, the statements of the eye witnesses are recorded
in which also neither the name of the present appellant revealed
nor the description was given by any of the eye witnesses of the
present appellant. The clothes of the present appellant are also
seized by the investigating agency, but no blood stains are found
on his clothes. During the investigation, the appellant was also
placed for the Test Identification Parade, but during Test
Identification Parade, none of the eye witnesses have identified.
The allegation made is against the present appellant on the basis
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
of general diary entry that he is the person who assisted the
other co-accused to screen themselves from punishment by
fleeing away from the spot of incident. It is submitted that as
far as the offence which is attracted against the present
appellant under Section 212 of Indian Penal Code is concerned,
which is a bailable one even if the major offence is punishable
with the capital punishment. Section 212 of the Indian Penal
Code is for harbouring the offender. He submitted that
allegation is also on the basis of the statement of the
co-accused. Except the statement of the co-accused, there is no
other material to show that the present appellant assisted the
other co-accused for fleeing away from the spot of incident. As
far as the criminal antecedents are concerned, he submitted that
no material is placed before the Court either he involved in any
crime beside this crime. Thus, considering the nature of the
evidence, the appellant be released on bail as investigation is
already completed and charge-sheet is filed. He further
submitted that no doubt, the offence alleged is grave and serious
in nature but considering the nature of the evidence which is
collected to connect the present appellant merely because the
nature of the offence is serious, is not sufficient to reject his bail.
8. Learned APP strongly opposed the said appeal on the
ground that in a very brutal manner the deceased was
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
eliminated by the present appellant and the other co-accused.
The manner in which the alleged offence is committed and the
role played by the present appellant is harbouring the criminals
to screen themselves from punishment. In view of that, the
application deserves to be rejected.
9. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the
learned APP for the State. Perused the investigation papers as
well as the recitals of the FIR. Admittedly, the name of the
present appellant is not mentioned in the FIR. After going
through entire charge-sheet with the help of the learned APP and
learned Counsel for the appellant, it reveals that the role
attributed to the present appellant is only on the basis of the
statement of the co-accused. As far as his involvement is
concerned, neither the informant nor the eye witnesses have
named him in the statement. His arrest is only on the basis of
the statement of the co-accused. Though there are eye
witnesses to the said incident, but they have identified the
present appellant as an assailant and nowhere stated that the
present appellant was present at the time of incident. The
general diary entry to the extent that he has assisted the other
co-accused from fleeing away from the spot of incident is also on
the basis of the statement of the co-accused. Thus, besides the
statement of the co-accused to show his involvement there is
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
absolutely no material to connect him with the alleged offence.
During the investigation, his clothes were also seized but it
nowhere discloses that it bears the blood stains. So, considering
the entire material collected during the investigation, though
offence is of a grievous nature, but in absence of any material
against the present appellant which is collected during the
investigation, he has made out a case for grant of bail. In view
of that, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Chandrapur below Exh.31
rejecting the bail application is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant Siddharth s/o Aadesh Bansod
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime
No.189/2022 registered with Police Station, Durgapur,
District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 427, 120-B, 212 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Chandrapur District without prior permission of the
District Court, Chandrapur.
(v) The appellant shall not enter into the jurisdiction
of Durgapur Police Station, till culmination of the trial.
68.apeal.393.2024,Judgment...odt
(vi) The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the
case.
10. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as
per rules.
11. The appeal is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/10/2024 19:08:25
