Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 913
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
GANESH SUBHEDAR PAWAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
APEAL 459 / 2024
Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Suhas B. Rohile for the Appellant. Mr. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ankur Pahade, for Respondent No.2.
The court emphasized that serious charges and potential witness tampering justify denying bail, regardless of co-accused being granted bail.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Appeal against rejection of bail application - Appellant accused of serious offences including murder and conspiracy - Prima facie evidence indicates motive, preparation, opportunity, and execution of crime - Delay in trial attributed to Appellant's conduct - No grounds for bail established. (Paras 1, 11, 16, 17)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Seriousness of the offence and potential for influencing witnesses are critical factors - Grant of bail to co-accused does not establish parity for the main accused. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant is accused of murdering a member of the Scheduled Caste community, with allegations of conspiracy and evidence of the deceased's last known whereabouts being with the Appellant. The Appellant's previous bail applications were rejected due to the serious nature of the charges and the evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the Appellant, including motive and opportunity, and that the Appellant's actions contributed to delays in the trial process.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Appellant should be granted bail in light of the evidence against him and the conduct that delayed the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the charges, combined with the Appellant's potential to influence witnesses and the evidence presented, justified the denial of bail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
1. This Appeal is filed under provisions of section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) challenging order dated 12 April 2024 passed by Special Judge, Pune, rejecting application filed by him for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Appellant is arraigned as Accused No.1 in CR No.591 of 2020 (Chargesheet No.288 of 2020) leading to registration of Special Case No.671 of 2020 for offences punishable under sections 302, 363, 364, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code Since the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community offences punishable under sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act are also added.
3. Prosecution story is that Complainant-Sheshrao Rangnath Angarakh (Respondent No.2) is the father of the deceased. The complainant initially filed missing complaint on 25 August 2020 stating that the deceased was missing since 16 August 2020. His supplementary statement was recorded on 26 August 2020 about the description of footwear worn by deceased as well as his identity marks. Since the deceased was not found, complainant recorded another statement on 2 September 2020 about discovery that the deceased has taken money from Appellant, who had twice demanded refund by approaching complainant’s house. That deceased had avoided repayment of the amount and on that ground, some disputes had believably occurred between the duo. That the deceased had made a telephonic conversation with his daughter-Sejal on 16 August 2020 at 7.30 p.m. and informed her that he was with Appellant and would return late in the night. However, the deceased did not return home and his phone was found to be switched off upon repeated attempts reach him. Therefore, complainant contacted Appellant and enquired about the deceased, when Appellant gave irrelevant and contradictory responses. Hence Complainant became sure that there was possibility of Appellant killing the deceased on account of non-refund of his amount.
4. Appellant was arrested on 2 September 2020 and according to the prosecution, the dead body of the deceased was discovered at the instance of the Appellant on 2 September 2020 and a panchanama to that effect was prepared under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter complainant’s further supplementary statement was recorded on 4 September 2020. The statements of various other witnesses including, deceased’s daughter, were also recorded, in which she referred to telephonic conversation with the deceased in the morning and afternoon of 16 August 2020. Accused No.2-Mangesh Jagtap, Accused No.3-Pradeep Kumar Lalji and Accused No.4-Arvind Ghuge were also arrested. The prosecution accordingly alleges that the four accused conspired to kill the deceased who was abducted and was made to consume alcohol at Laxminarayan Restaurant and Bar, at Kasarsai and thereafter was taken at Pachani, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune and while the deceased was in inebriated stage, he was killed by use of stone and JCB bucket. It is further alleged that with a view to destroy the evidence, a pit was dug by use of JCB and his body was buried in the same.
5. It appears that Appellant filed first application for Bail before the learned Special Judge, which came to be rejected by order dated 23 June 2022. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2022 in this Court which came to be withdrawn by order dated 21 December 2022 with liberty to file fresh application before the Trial Court if trial in Special case No.671 of 2020 was not concluded within one year.
6. It appears that Accused-Arvind Ghuge came to be released on bail by this Court by order dated 22 September 2021. Accused-Mangesh Jagtap and Pradeep Kumar Lalji came to be enlarged on bail by order passed by this Court on 29 February 2024. Appellant filed second application for Bail before the learned Special Judge, which came to be rejected by order dated 12 April 2024, which is th
