Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Rajesh Santosh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 January, 2024

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2024:BHC-AS:3710
                                                                                 924-BA-2185-2023 (S).doc
                                                                                                   Arjun



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         BAIL APPLICATION NO.2185 OF 2023

                    Mr. Rajesh Santosh                                    ...Applicant

                            Versus

                    The State of Maharashtra                              ...Respondent


                    Mr. Aditya Sharma, for the Applicant.
                    Ms. Veera Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                    Mr. Ramesh Vaidya, Police Constable (HC-1622), Kharghar Police
                    Station-Navi Mumbai, present.



                                                  CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                  DATED : JANUARY 24, 2024

                    P.C.:


                    1.      Heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the

                    Applicant and Ms. Shinde, learned APP appearing for the

                    Respondent-State.

                    2.      This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

                    of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are

                    as follows:-

                      1 C. R. No.                            245 of 2016
                      2 Date of Registration of F.I.R. 08/08/2016
                      3 Name of Police Station               Kharghar Police Station,
                                                             Navi Mumbai




                                                         1
                   ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024                   ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 09:59:20 :::
                                                            924-BA-2185-2023 (S).doc
                                                                             Arjun

   4 Section/s invoked                 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D,
                                       489-E, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian
                                       Penal Code, 1860.
   5 Date of Incident                  08/08/2016
   6 Date of Arrest                    08/08/2016
   7 Date of fling Charge-sheet        02/11/2016


 3.      By Order dated 21st June 2018 passed in Bail Application

 No.205 of 2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram: Smt.

 Sadhana S. Jadhav, J] has rejected the Bail Application of the

 present Applicant.

 4.      An another co-accused namely Ashish Kamalakar Pednekar

 has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Order

 dated 14th December 2023 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave

 to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12272/2023. The said Order reads as

 under:-

                  "Heard Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned counsel
       appearing for the petitioner. It is pointed out by the
       learned counsel that the petitioner who is seeking bail is
       in custody for last about 7 years since he was arrested
       on 16.08.2016 and the Court is yet to frame charges in
       the case arising out of the FIR No.245/2016.
       2.         On the other hand, the State counsel would
       submit that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents
       and the accused No.9 - Pradish Prabhakaran is still
       absconding. The seriousness of the crime is also
       highlighted by the State Counsel to say that bail should
       not be granted.




                                   2
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024                ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 09:59:20 :::
                                                                  924-BA-2185-2023 (S).doc
                                                                                   Arjun
       3.         Under Section 489D IPC, the maximum sentence
       is imprisonment for life.
       4.         While appreciating that it is a serious crime in
       which the petitioner is named as an accused, it cannot
       also be overlooked that he has been in custody for last 7
       years. As the charges are yet to be framed in the case,
       the Trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date. It is also
       pointed         out     that   the   Custody   Certifcate          dated
       12.08.2023 of the Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai,
       shows that petitioner has secured bail in the other cases.
       5.         Going by the above, we deem it appropriate to
       grant bail to the petitioner in connection with the case
       arising out of FIR No.245 of 2016. Appropriate bail
       condition be stipulated by the learned Sessions Judge at
       Panvel. It is however made clear that if the petitioner is
       wanted in any other case, he should not be released on
       the basis of this order.
       6.         With the above, the Special Leave Petition is
       disposed of.
       7.         Pending application(s), if any, stand closed."
                                                      (Emphasis added)

 5.      The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said

 case of Ashish Kamalakar Pednekar are squarely applicable to the

 present case. The Applicant is also involved in the same crime as

 that of the Petitioner before the Supreme Court. It is the

 contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that, in

 fact a major role in the crime is that of Ashish Kamalakar

 Pednekar i.e. Petitioner before the Supreme Court. However, the




                                            3
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024                      ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 09:59:20 :::
                                                            924-BA-2185-2023 (S).doc
                                                                             Arjun
 said contentions need not be examined as the accused has been

 incarcerated since 8th August 2016 i.e. more than 7 years and 6

 months. There are a total of 9 accused. All other co-accused have

 been enlarged on bail.

 6.      There is one antecedent. However, in the said case, the

 accused-Ashish Kamalakar Pednekar has been granted bail.

 Therefore, this is a ft case where bail may be granted.

 7.      Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant states that the

 trial has not yet started.

 8.      It is an admitted position that the investigation has been

 completed and that the Charge-sheet has been fled on 2nd

 November 2016. There are several witnesses as per the Charge-

 sheet. The trial has not yet started even after a period of more

 than 7 years. The trial is likely to take a considerable time.

 9.      The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of fight.

 10. Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by

 imposing conditions. In view thereof, the following order:-

                                   ORDER

(a) The Applicant-Mr. Rajesh Santosh be released on bail in connection with C. R. No.245 of 2016 registered with the Kharghar Police Station, Taluka-Panvel District-Raigad on his furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(b) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish his 4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 09:59:20 ::: 924-BA-2185-2023 (S).doc Arjun cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Offcer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

(c) The Applicant shall report to the Kharghar Police Station, Taluka-Panvel District-Raigad on the frst Sunday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. until the conclusion of the trial.

(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not contact or infuence the Complainant or any witnesses in any manner.

(f) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

(g) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Offcer.

11. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 09:59:20 :::