Bombay High Court
Laxman Anna Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 1634
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
Ethape 1/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1396 OF 2019
Laxman Anna Jadhav .. Applicant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for Applicant.
Smt. Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent.
PSI Santosh Patil, Kothrud Police Station present.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 09th JANUARY 2020
PC.
1 This is an application for bail in connection with C. R.
No. 468 of 2012, registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune,
for the ofences punishable under Sections 307, 384, 387 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and section 3
(25) of the Arms Act. The Applicant was arrested on 11 th August
2014.
2 The prosecution case is that, in the month of May and
June 2012, the frst informant received a call on his cell phone
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 2/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
from PCO. The caller informed the frst informant that, he is
Laxman Anna Jadhav and he needs money. The caller
disconnected the phone. On 12 th June 2012, the ofice boy of the
informant Vinayak Madhav Jade was proceeding through Gosavi
Vasti on his motorcycle, some unknown person shot at him by
revolver causing injury on his abdomen. He fled complaint with
the Police Station. On 18 th June 2012, 19th June 2012 and 26 th
June 2012, the aforesaid person again called on the mobile
phone of the complainant and demanded amount of Rs.
50,00,000/-. In the event of not-fulflling demand, he threatened
the informant that he would fnish him and his family members.
On 08th July 2012 he received call from Sagar Sweets situated at
Dahanukar Colony and he was informed that, associate of
Laxman Jadhav has come to the said shop and the informant is
called to the shop. He did not visit the shop. On 27 th September
2012 at about 09:10 pm. while he was sitting in the hall along
with his family members, suddenly, he heard sound of fring on
the window and the glass of the window was broken. Some
unknown person had fred from his window and left the place.
The informant complained to the Police. The police visited place
of the incident, they found empty outside the gate of the
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 3/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
bungalow and the cartridge in the house of the informant. On
watching CCTV footage from the CCTV camera installed at the
residence, it was noticed that two persons had arrived outside
gate of the bungalow and one of them had fred. The First
Information Report was registered on 27 th September 2012. The
investigation proceeded, statement of various witnesses were
recorded. Supplementary statement of the First informant was
recorded on 10th October 2012. In the said statement it was
stated that, on 30th September 2012, the informant received a
call from the person who gave his name Laxman Jadhav, and
stated that by now he must have known as to what he can do.
Although, he shot at Vinayak Jade, he had spared the family of
informant. The caller demanded amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- and
also stated that, the informant shall give him amount of Rs. 3 to
4 lakhs. On 02nd October 2012, the informant again received a
call and the caller demanded money. On 03 rd October 2012 the
caller gave the account number and told the complainant to
deposit money in the said account. The complainant deposited
Rs. 49,000/-. Subsequently, the informant also received threat
calls. Statement of Punaram Chaudhari was recorded on 10 th
October 2012, he has stated that, he is conducting business in
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 4/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
partnership as Sagar Developers at Pune. The frst informant is
his partner. He was informed that, he should visit complainant
for settlement. Thereafter, he repeatedly called and threatened
the complainant. The threats were continued even after
registration of First Information Report. Calls from diferent
places were received by the complainant. During the course of
investigation, Gokul Anna Jadhav was arrested. He had disclosed
that, Laxman Jadhav is his brother. During the course of
investigation, he stated that the amount of Rs. 49,000/- deposited
by the complainant in the account at COSMOS Bank, the
accused Laxman Jadhav had withdrawn through the Debit Card
of Gokul Jadhav sum of Rs. 1,40,408/-. Even thereafter, threats
continued. On completing investigation, charge-sheet is fled.
3 Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that,
there is no evidence to show involvement of the Applicant in the
said crime. The Applicant is in custody for about four years.
There is no evidence to establish link between person who called
the complainant and the Applicant. The CDR is not on record to
show that, the Applicant gave calls of extortion. The calls were
allegedly made from PCO. As per CCTV footage two persons had
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 5/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
arrived outside bungalow of the complainant, one of them had
fred. There is no identifcation to show that, the Applicant was
the person who fred at complainant. There is no identifcation
parade. No amount is recovered from the Applicant.
4 Learned APP submitted that, the ofence is of serious
nature. The threatening calls continued even after lodging the
First Information Report to frst informant and the other
witnesses. At the instance of the accused, the informant was told
to deposit the money into account of Gokul Jadhav and the said
amount was deposited and withdrawn. The Applicant is brother
of Gokul Jadhav. The ofice boy of the complainant was shot by
unknown person. The Applicant was involved in the said case.
The accused had fred through the window of victims residence
with intention to kill the frst informant. The empty bullet was
found at the place of incident which supports the prosecution
case. The Applicant is habitual ofender. Several cases are
registered against him. He was involved in eleven cases and
externment proceedings were initiated against him. He was
arrested after a period of two years from incident.
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 6/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
5 The case of the prosecution is that, the frst informant
was threatened by the caller. He gave his name as Laxman
Jadhav. As per prosecution case, the Applicant was instrumental
in threatening the complainant and other witnesses. The calls
were received repeatedly from PCO and other numbers from
diferent places. There is no CDR on record. While informant was
in the house some unknown person fred through window. It is
not established that, the Applicant is the person who had fred.
CCTV footage indicated that, two persons had arrived at the gate
of the informants bungalow and fred at the window. The
informant did not sustain any injury. There is no Test
Identifcation Parade to establish that, the Applicant is one of the
persons who had fred from the window of frst informant's
bungalow. The cell phone of the Applicant was not seized.
6 Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the
Applicant has been acquitted in the case relating to fring on the
ofice boy of the complainant Vinayak Madhav Jade. It is also
submitted that, the Applicant is on bail in Cr. No. 151 of 2007
registered with Kothrud Police Station, C. R. No. 163 of 2007
registered with Kothrud Police Station for the ofences
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 7/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc
punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. The Applicant is
acquitted in C. R. No. 3159 of 2003, C. R. No. 231 of 2008, C. R.
No. 126 of 2010, C. R. No. 136 of 2010, C. R. No. 273 of 2012, C.
R. No. 210 of 2008, C. R. No. 564 of 2012 (case relating to
assault on the ofice boy of the complainant). C. R. No. 214 of
2012 is pending. It is further submitted that, the Applicant is
also acquitted in C. R. No. 340 of 2012, C. R No. 274 of 2013, C.
R. No. 308 of 2014. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of
the trial Court acquitting the Applicant in cases. Gokul Jadhav
has been granted bail. The Applicant is in custody for four years.
Considering the nature of evidence, the Applicant cannot be
detained, further trial has not commenced.
ORDER
(i) Bail application No. 1396 of 2019 is allowed;
(ii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 468 of 2012 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::
Ethape 8/8 903.BA.1396.19.doc (iii) The Applicant shall stay out of the jurisdiction of Pune
District till Conclusion of the Trial. The Application shall furnish details of address where he would reside after released on bail to the Investigating Oficer.
(iv) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court. He is permitted to enter Pune to attend the trial Court on the respective dates of hearing.
(v) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 09:27:36 :::