Bombay High Court
Anil Kisan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 2020
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1676 OF 2019
Anil Kisan Pawar .. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1677 OF 2019
Satish Pratap Bhosale .. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr. Rohit Shevate i/b. Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the
Applicant in BA 1676 of 2019.
Mr. Mohammad S. Mulla, Advocate for the Applicant in BA 1677
of 2019.
Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : 14th FEBRUARY, 2020.
P.C. :
The applicants in both these applications were
arrested in C.R.No.601 of 2018, registered with Solapur Taluka
Police Station, for the ofences punishable under Sections 395
and 412 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short). The First
Information Report ("FIR", for short) was lodged on 27 th
September, 2018. The incident had occurred on 26th September,
2018 at about 10:30 p.m. The FIR was lodged by Yuvraj
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::
rpa 2/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
Chandrashekar Dharde.
2 The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
The Complainant is working as Munim with Suryodaya
Industries situated at Tandulwadi Solapur. Suryakand Upase is
working as the watchman. Hussain Shaikh is also working as
Munim and Mohan Kondiba Saravade is working as ftter in the
said industry. On 26th September, 2018, at about 10:30 p.m., four
unknown persons tied hands of Suryakant Upase. They also tied
hands of the complainant. He was assaulted. Mohan Saravade
noticed commotion and fashed battery at the accused.
Thereafter, all the accused took Rs.10,000/-, and other articles,
such as, Television, Welding Machine cable, mobile phone etc.,
wroth Rs.5,09,000/-. They left the place of incident on motorcycle.
The FIR was registered. The statements of the complainant,
Suryakant Upase, Mohan Saravade were recorded. Subsequently,
the accused were arrested. The Test Identifcation parade ("TI
parade", for short), was conducted. On completion of
investigation charge - sheet is fled.
3 The applicants preferred application for bail before
the Court of Sessions at Solapur. Both the applications were
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::
rpa 3/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
rejected by order dated 4th May, 2019.
4 Learned advocate appearing for both the applicants
submitted that the applicants are falsely implicated in this case.
There are discrepancies in the TI parade. The TI parade was
conducted belatedly on 1st November, 2018. There is no recovery
from the applicants. No role is played by the applicants. They
were not named in the FIR. Mohan Saravade, who is the alleged
eye witness to the incident had not identifed applicant Satish
Bhosale in the TI parade. He was the witness who had fashed the
torch light at the accused. It is submitted that both the applicants
are in custody suficiently for a long period of time and the trial
has not commenced. Further custody of the applicants is not
necessary.
5 Learned APP submitted that there is suficient
evidence against the applicants. They are involved in serious
ofence. The eye witnesses have identifed them. The accused had
taken away the property worth Rs.5,09,000/-. There are criminal
antecedents against the applicants. Articles were recovered from
the accused. Accused Anil Kisan Pawar is involved in 12 other
cases registered with Solapur Taluka Police Station, and, Mohol
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::
rpa 4/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
Police Station as well as Tuljapur Police Station. Accused Satish
Bhosale was involved in three other cases registered with Solapur
Taluka Police Station and Mohod police station, hence, bail may
not be granted to the applicants.
6 The incident had occurred on 26 th September, 2018.
The FIR was lodged on 27th September, 2018. Complainant Yuvraj
Bharde, Suryakant Upase and Mohan Saravade are the eye
witnesses to the incident. They have narrated the incident. The
accused had tied the hands of the complainant and Suryakant
Upase. They took away cash of Rs.10,000/-, and, the articles
refected in the FIR worth Rs.5,09,000/-. Co-accused Raju
Pakhare was granted bail by this Court. However, the role
attributed to him was distinct and the nature of evidence
collected against him can be distinguished. It was observed that
except statement of Mohan Saravade, there is no other statement
involving the said accused. The applicants were arrested on 30 th
September, 2018. At the time of arrest, the accused were found in
possession of rope, sticks, instruments to open transformer,
screw driver, hammer, axe and blade etc. Both the applicants
were identifed by complainant Yuvraj Bharade. Mohan Saravade
had identifed applicant Anil Kisan Pawar. He has not identifed
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::
rpa 5/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
Satish Bhosale. However, Suryakant Upase has identifed
applicant Anil Pawar as well as Satish Bhosale. Statement of
Girish Bhosale was recorded, in which he has stated that he had
handed over his auto-rickshaw to one Anil Wale, residing at
Solapur. Shri Anil Wale had appointed Satish Bhosale, as
rickshaw driver on the said rickshaw. The said rickshaw was used
while committing the crime. Learned APP, on instructions,
pointed out that 11 other cases were registered against Anil
Kisan Pawar vide C.R.No.486 of 2018, for the ofences punishable
under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, C.R.No.337 of 2018, for the
ofences punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of IPC.,
C.R.No.116 of 2014, for ofences punishable under Section 379
read with 34 of IPC, C.R.No.121 of 2014, for the ofences
punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC, C.R.No.231 of
2014, for the ofence punishable under Section 401 of IPC,
C.R.No.155 of 2010, registered under Section 399 of IPC,
C.R.No.309 of 2018, registered for ofence punishable under
Section 379 of IPC, C.R.No.389 of 2018, registered for the
ofences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC,
C.R.No.109 of 2010, registered for ofence punishable under
Sections 379 and 427 of IPC, C.R.No.190 of 2009, for ofence
punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC and C.R.No.408 of
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::
rpa 6/6 ba-1676-1677-19.doc
2009, for ofences punishable under Sections 309 and 511 of IPC.
Whereas, as against the applicant Satish Bhosale, the ofences
were registered vide C.R.No.486 of 2018, for the ofences
punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, C.R.No.337 of
2018, registered for ofence under Section 379, 34 of IPC and
C.R.No.309 of 2018, under Section 379, 34 of IPC. Thus, in the
light of the material showing involvement of the applicants in the
crime and the antecedents of the applicants, no case for bail is
made out.
7 Hence, I pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Bail Application Nos.1676 of 2019 and 1677 of 2019, stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:55 :::