Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1091
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
SANDIP S/O LAXMAN THAKARE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS JAULKA TAH.MALEGAON DIST.WASHIM AND ANOTHER – Respondent
APEAL 758 / 2023
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate a/w Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. U.R. Phasate, APP for the State. Mr. P.S. Wathare, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Insufficient evidence to connect the appellant to the conspiracy; bail granted based on parity with co-accused.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 364, and 120-B - Bail application rejected by Special Judge - Appellant accused of conspiracy in murder and abduction - Insufficient evidence to connect appellant directly to the crime - Co-accused with similar roles granted bail - Appeal allowed on grounds of parity. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Mere communication with co-accused not sufficient to establish involvement in conspiracy - Need for direct evidence to substantiate claims against the accused. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is accused in a murder and abduction case involving political rivalry, where the deceased was allegedly abducted and later found dead. The appellant's role is claimed to be that of a conspirator, but evidence is limited to witness statements and call records. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to deny bail, especially given that co-accused with similar allegations had been granted bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence against the appellant and the principle of parity in granting bail. (Paras 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime, combined with the similar roles of co-accused who were granted bail, warranted the appellant's release on bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted under specified conditions.
1.ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has challenged the order dated 07/10/2023 whereby the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Washim has rejected the bail application of the appellant bearing Criminal Bail Application No.302/2023.
3. The appellant/accused Sandip Laxman Thakare is arraigned as an accused in connection with Crime No.41/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’ for short).
4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the wife of the deceased namely Leelabai Vishwas Kamble on an allegation that her husband Vishwas was abducted on 18/02/2023 around 2.00 p.m. and after few hours his dead body was found. The cause of death was strangulation with the aid of ligature. It is alleged that in the year 2022, the Gram Panchayat election was held in which the informant’s husband got elected as a member and then he became UpSarpanch of the village. There was a political rivalry between her husband and the group of Wankhede family on the other hand. Since four brothers namely Keshav Wankhede, Ramchandra Wankhede, Shamsunder Wankhede and Namdeo Wankhede were annoyed against the deceased Vishwas. On 18/02/2023 around 2.00 p.m. the informant had gone with her husband to the dispensary. On their return journey at about 3.30 p.m. deceased went to the side for urination. Within two minutes, the informant heard shouts from that side and she witnessed that three persons have forcefully made her husband to sit in a white coloured car and took him away. They threw some articles of the deceased on the road while leaving the place. Some of the village boys also seen the occurrence and noted registration number of the said car. After sometime, the informant/wife learnt that her husband was found dead. Hence, she lodged the report against these four Wankhede brothers. The police have recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses, seized some articles, collected CDR and on completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet. The name of the present appellant revealed during the investigation alleging that he is the conspirator and the other co-accused deputed him to see the movements of the deceased and present appellant used to inform the co-accused regarding the whereabouts of the deceased.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that except the statement of one witness namely Raju Tukaram Kamble there is no other material to connect the present appellant with the alleged offence. He submitted that the another co-accused Keshav Narhari Wankhede and Datta Kundalik Dukare both are released on bail by the Division Bench of this Court against whom the similar allegations is levelled. He further submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application for grant of bail observing that there is a call records which reveals the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence as a conspirator. In fact, the person with whom the calls are exchanged allegedly, they are already released on bail by the Division Bench of this Court. The role of the present appellant is similar to them, and therefore, on the ground of parity also the present appellant deserves to be released on bail.
6. He submitted that now investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the present appellant is not required. In view of that, he be released on bail.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application and submitted that not only the statement of Raju Tukaram Kamble but the other statements of the witnesses i.e. the statement of one Dhananjay Ramesh Awgan who is the relative of the accused
