The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused unless distinguishing factors exist; circumstantial evidence alone, particularly the 'last seen theory', is insufficient for conviction.

J U D G M E N T :

1 This is Appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) challenging order dated 14 February 2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, rejecting application filed by Appellant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.361 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. Act.

2 Statement of the first informant-Megha Suryakant Athawale, mother of deceased is recorded on 6 October 2023, which is the basis for registration of FIR. That the first informant, alongwith her husband and son reside in the same lane in which accused Anuj Mane, Sunil Mane and Chaitanya Mane reside. Other accused Alwin Waghmare is a friend of Anuj Mane, Sunil Mane and Chaitnya Mane and resides in Ambedkarnagar, Kavthe Mahankal. Accused Anuj Mane, Anil Mane, Sunil Mane and Chaitanya Mane used to work as drivers on the ambulance of Shri Gopal Pachphule, who works in Government Hospital. That the deceased Sushil @ Panya Athawale used to steal the undergarments of women residing in the lane, on account of which the residents of the lane had beaten him. The deceased Sushil @ Panya had burnt the house of Sunil Mane on account of such assault. FIR was lodged against Sushil @ Panya and after securing bail for him, he was sent at village Yelavi, where first informant’s married daughter was residing. After residing at village Yelavi for few days, deceased Suhshil @ Panya returned at Kavthe Mahankal. That three months before lodging of FIR, deceased Sushil @ Panya had sent a friend request to the wife of Chaitanya Mane on account of which accused Chaitanya Mane, Anil Mane, Anuj Mane, Sunil Mane and Alwin Waghmare had beaten him. The deceased got angry and published derogatory remarks by posting photographs of Chaitanya Mane’s wife, Anuj Mane’s mother and Sunil Mane’s wife. Therefore, Anuj Mane’s mother had lodged complaint against the deceased on 11 June 2023. The deceased was accordingly arrested and detained in Sangli jail. During his custody, Chaitanya Mane and his friends were openly discussing in the lane that once the deceased was released from custody, he would not be kept alive. After 20 days, the deceased was released from custody and was sent at Kupwad MIDC for work. He returned to Kavthe Mahankal 10 to 12 days before lodging of the FIR to attend the date in the Court on 29 September 2023.

3 The FIR further alleges that on 1 October 2023, the informant’s relatives Amol Dhende came home and informed the first informant that Sunil Mane and Anil Mane had told him to counsel the deceased as he was still gazing into the houses or else he would not be left alive. That on 4 December 2023 at 12 noon, the deceased had gone to Kavthe Mahankal market yard to answer nature’s call and did not return home. After making enquiries, he could not be found and accordingly missing complaint was registered on 5 October 2023. On 6 October 2023, the relative Amol Mahadeo Dhende came home when the first informant told him about the deceased being missing, he informed the first informant that on 4 October 2023 at 12 noon when Amol Dhende had gone to market yard to collect garbage, he had seen that the deceased was assaulted by Chaitanya Mane, Sunil Mane, Anil Mane, Alwin Waghmare and Anuj Mane and was taken in ambulance of Gopal Pachphule at undisclosed location. The first informant therefore stated in her statement that the deceased was abducted by the accused with intention of killing him on account of sending of derogatory messages regarding Chaitanya Mane’s wife, Sunil Mane’s wife and Anuj Mane’s mother.

4 It appears that accused Chaitanya Mane, Sunil Mane, Anuj Mane, Anil Mane and Alwin Waghmare were arrested on 7 October 2023. It is the story of prosecution that a panchanama under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) was recorded at the instance of