Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6546
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J
ARUNKUMAR DEVNATH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
ABA/2564/2024
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Abid Mulani, Mr. Ashish SHRINIVAS MALANI Agarkar, Ms. Harshada Panphani and Mr. Chinmay Patil, for Applicant. Mr. Shishir Hiray, Special Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. Sanjay Kokane and Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Ganesh Ingale, ACP, Crime-1, Pune City.
The court found a prima facie case for serious charges against the applicant, including forgery and conspiracy, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304, 338, 337, 427, 279, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109, 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections 184, 185, 3(1), 180, 5(1), 171, 119-A, 199/177 - Anticipatory bail application - Allegations of conspiracy and forgery in a fatal accident case involving a minor - The applicant's son, driving a Porsche, allegedly caused death while intoxicated; the applicant is accused of tampering with blood samples to mislead authorities. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 26)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized the severity of the charges under Section 467 IPC, which carries life imprisonment, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to investigate the conspiracy. The applicant's absconding status was noted as a significant factor against granting bail. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused in a case where his son, while driving under the influence, caused a fatal accident. Allegations include bribery and tampering with blood samples to protect the minor.
Findings of Court:
The court found a strong prima facie case against the applicant for serious charges, including forgery and conspiracy.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant's actions constituted forgery under IPC and the implications of his absconding status on the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's actions, including tampering with blood samples, constituted a prima facie case for serious charges, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation.
Result: Application dismissed.
1. This Court heard arguments in the present application on 27.09.2024 and closed the same for orders. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) appearing for the respondent – State, both requested for time till 09.10.2024 for placing written notes of arguments and supporting judgments on record, as a question of law arose in the matter. Accordingly, the parties were granted time and they did place on record written notes of arguments alongwith copies of supporting judgments.
2. On 27.09.2024, this Court recorded a statement made by the learned SPP, on instructions of the ACP, Crime-1, Pune City, present in Court on that day, that till the decision in the present application, no coercive action would be taken against the applicant.
3. The applicant in the present application is one of the accused persons concerning First Information Report (FIR) No.0306 of 2024, dated 19.05.2024, registered at Police Station Yerawada, District Pune, for offences under Sections 304, 338, 337, 427, 279, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468 , 471 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 7, 7-A, 8 , 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 184, 185, 3(1) 180, 5(1) 171, 119-A and 199/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 .
4. The FIR was registered at the behest of informant Aquib Mulla. He stated that when he and his friends were returning home after a party and they reached near landmark society at Kalyani Nagar, Airport road, Pune, a Porsche car, which did not have registration plates, being driven in an extremely rash and negligent manner, under drunken condition by a child in conflict of law hit a Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle from the backside, thereby causing the death of the victims, who were riding the motorcycle. The occupants of the said car included the minor son of the applicant, who was said to be sitting in the rear seat of the Porsche car and who was himself alleged to be in a drunken condition.
5. The investigation was conducted by the ACP and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed, with the case being registered as Special Case (ACB) No. 917 of 2024. It was alleged that the parents of the child in conflict with law, who was driving the Porsche car, indulged in illegal conduct by bribing the doctors of the hospital where the blood samples of the occupants of the car were collected for analysis. According to the investigating authority, one of the doctors i.e. Dr. Halnor at ₹ the Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, accepted illegal gratification of 3 Lakhs from the parents of the child in conflict with law, who was driving the Porsche car, in order to take the blood sample of the mother of the said child in conflict with the law and to show the same as being that of the child in conflict with law, further forwarding it for analysis. This was done with the connivance of another doctor named Dr. Taware and other persons, all of whom have been arraigned as accused persons.
6. Similarly, the allegation against the applicant is that he replaced the blood sample of his minor son in connivance with the aforesaid doctors and staff, as also the co-accused parents of the child in conflict with law, who was driving the Porsche car, with the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal and such replaced blood sample was sent for analysis. According to the investigating authority, the applicant absconded when the said modus operandi came to light during the course of investigation. The other co- accused persons were arrested, while the applicant remained absconding. He applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, but the same was rejected by an order dated 09.09.2024.
7. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that although there may be material on record to prima facie indicate the role of the applicant in terms of the aforesaid allegations made against him, and even if
