Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Paras Jalindar Bansode - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 2432 of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2023
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC SECTIONS 302, 307, 326, 323, 34; CrPC SECTION 173 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder and attempted murder, as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerning the investigation process. The court highlighted the importance of the first information report (FIR) and the necessity of corroborative evidence in determining the applicant's involvement. The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the lack of direct evidence against the applicant and the release of a co-accused under similar circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Paras Jalindar Bansode, was charged with serious offenses under IPC sections 302, 307, 326, and 323, related to a fatal stabbing incident. The applicant sought bail, claiming a significant change in circumstances since a co-accused was released on bail. The incident involved an altercation where the deceased was stabbed, leading to his death, and the applicant was alleged to have been present but not directly involved in the assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR did not name the applicant and that the allegations against him were general in nature compared to the specific accusations against the co-accused. The court noted that the deceased's statement did not corroborate the applicant's involvement in the assault, leading to the conclusion that the applicant had made a case for bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges, the evidence against him, and the release of a co-accused under similar circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations and corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The lack of direct evidence against the applicant, coupled with the release of a co-accused, justified the exercise of discretion in favor of granting bail.
Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail on certain conditions, including the requirement to not tamper with evidence and to regularly attend court proceedings.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The applicant who is arraigned in C.R.No. 74 of 2022 registered with Shahupuri police station, Satara for the offences punishable under Sec. 302, 307, 326 and 323 read with 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860, along with co-accused, has preferred this application to enlarge him on bail.
2. Initially the applicant had preferred Bail Application No. 1477 of 2022. The said application came to be disposed as withdrawn.
3. The applicant avers that there is a significant change in the circumstances. In the intervening period, co-accused Jay Gaikwad has been released by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara by an order dtd. 4/11/2022.
4. Heard Mr. Kiran Bhange, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Dhabolkar, learned APP for the State.
5. Perused the report under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) and the documents annexed with it.
6. Aniket Salunkhe lodged a report on 3/3/2022 that he had accompanied Pratik Badekar (the deceased) to a spot near Futka Lake where accused No. 1 Viraj Salunkhe had called the deceased for a meeting. An altercation ensued between accused No. 1 Viraj and the deceased. As accused No. 1 Viraj started to assault the deceased, he and his friend Mangesh Badekar intervened. Accused No. 1 Viraj whipped out a knife and stabbed the deceased in the stomach. When he tried to rescue the deceased, the accused No. 1 Viraj assaulted him by means of knife on the stomach and back. Co-accused Jay Gaikwad, who accompanied accused No. 1 Viraj, caught hold of Mangesh. Accused No. 1 Viraj also assaulted Mangesh. Deceased and injured sustained bleeding injuries, and were hospitalized.
7. The statement of the deceased came to be recorded on 13/3/2022 at Satara Diagnostic center. After narrating the cause of the dispute between the deceased and accused No. 1 Viraj, the deceased informed that when accused No. 1 Viraj assaulted him by means of knife, the co-accused Jay Gaikwad, Pratik Badekar and Paras Bansode, the applicant herein, rushed to the scene of occurrence. The applicant was armed with a scythe. Accused No. 1 Viraj assaulted Mangesh and his friend Aniket by means of knife. The co-accused Pratik Badekar, Jay Gaikwad and the applicant exhorted accused No. 1 to leave Mangesh and Aniket and kill the deceased. Thereupon, all of them again assaulted him.
8. Eventually, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 5/4/2022. The autopsy surgeon opined that septicemic shock following stab injury was the cause of death.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid material, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the first information report not only the applicant was not named but it was categorically asserted that only co-accused Jay Gaikwad accompanied accused No. 1 Viraj, the principal assailant. He further submitted that there is no corroboration to the statement of the deceased that at the time of occurrence the applicant was armed with scythe. Nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. Since investigation is complete for all intent and purpose, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. Ms. Dhabholkar, learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that since the first application was withdrawn by the applicant and there is no change in the circumstances, the application does not deserve to be entertained.
11. Indisputably, by an order dtd. 4/11/2022 passed in Bail Application No. 723 of 2022 the learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to release the co-accused Jay Gaikwad, on bail. It is imperative to note that co-accused Jay Gaikwad was specifically named in the first information report. In fact, the role of having caught hold of Mangesh Badekar, another injured, whilst accused No. 1 Viraj unleashed the blows by means of knife was attributed to Jay Gaikwad.
12. In the first information report, the first informant did not advert to the presence of two more assailants. Even in the statement of the deceased dtd. 13/3/2022 the role attributed to the accuse
The court established that in the absence of specific allegations and corroborative evidence, a defendant may be entitled to bail, especially when co-accused have been granted similar relief.
The court emphasized the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of accusations, the evidence, and the larger interests of the public or State.
The severity of the crime, the criminal record of the applicant, and the possibility of influencing witnesses are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence, and the p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
