Bombay High Court
Sanket @ Vashya Sanjay Thote vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 June, 2023
Author: R. N. Laddha
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
2023:BHC-AS:16535-DB
(7)-WP-574-20.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.574 OF 2020
Shri. Sanket @ Vashya Sanjay Thote ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
Mr. Vinod Sangvikar i/by Umesh Mankapure, for the Petitioner.
Smt. A. S. Pai, GP a/w Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/
State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 19th JUNE, 2023 P.C.
1. This writ petition is for quashing in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Pursuant to the complaint dated 6 th February, 2019 lodged by Ravindra an offence being Crime No.15 of 2019 punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 427 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4, 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Sections 3, 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act came to be registered with Ashta Police Station.
3. Along with other accused persons, the petitioner came to be charge-sheeted for the following offences :-
BGP. 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 08:13:37 :::
(7)-WP-574-20.doc.
v- vkjksihps ukao iRrk o; iRrk vVd fjekaM ''ksjk
ua- fnukad fnukad
1- mn; j?kqukFk eksjs 24 jk- rsyh xYyh 31-03-2019 05-04-2019 U;k;ky;hu
o""kZ vk""Vk rk- okGok dksBMh
ft- lkaxyh
2- rkyhc fy;kdr eqtkoj 24 jk- jkeeanhjtoG 14-02-2019 -- Tkkehukoj
o""kZ vk""Vk rk- okGok [kqyk vkgs-
ft- lkaxyh ek-ts,e,Qlh
b- iqj ;kauh
3- Hkjr ckGklkgsc ?kl?kls -- jk- okMdj xYyh -- -- ijkxa/kk
vk""Vk rk- okGok
ft- lkaxyh
4- vftaD; v:.k lkoGokMs 20 jk- ?kksjiMs xYyh 08-02-2019 14-02-2019 Tkkehukoj
o""kZ vk""Vk rk- okGok [kqyk vkgs-
ft- lkaxyh ek-ts,e,Qlh
b- iqj ;kauh
5- lkxj izdk'k ok?kekjs 24 jk- lqrkj xYyh 08-02-2019 14-02-2019 Tkkehukoj
o""kZ vk""Vk rk- okGok [kqyk vkgs-
ft- lkaxyh ek-ts,e,Qlh
b- iqj ;kauh
6- ladsr ÅQZ o';k lat; -- -- -- -- ijkxa/kk
FkksVs
7- feFkqu ckGklkgsc HkaMkjs 29 jk- Makxs dkWyst 31-03-2019 05-04-2019 U;k;ky;hu
o""kZ ''kstkjh dksBMh
vk""Vk rk- okGok
ft- lkaxyh
8- vfHk"ksd ÅQZ eU;k 19 jk- Makxs dkWyst 31-03-2019 05-04-2019 U;k;ky;hu
vkuan gkcGs o""kZ ''kstkjh dksBMh
vk""Vk rk- okGok
ft- lkaxyh
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions i.e. (a) that the alleged offence occurred in the intervening night of 6th and 7th February, 2019. According to him, neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the eye witnesses name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. Relying on the statement BGP. 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 08:13:37 ::: (7)-WP-574-20.doc.
of the witnesses which were recorded on 14 th February, 2019 i.e. almost after a period of one week, it it claimed that the petitioner's name is included in the offence in question; (b) his further contentions are, while proposal was sent for prosecution against accused persons holding them as a gang members for offence under the MCOCA has not granted sanction against the petitioner for want of availability of appropriate material. That being so, he would urge that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence in question.
5. Learned APP based on the investigation papers viz. charge-sheet submits that enough evidence is available against the petitioner so as to infer that at the time of commission of the offence, not only he was present on the spot, but has actively participated in the offence. As such, support is drawn from the CCTV footage in which the petitioner is shown to have been participated in the commission of the offence in question.
6. We have appreciated the aforesaid submissions.
7. The FIR came to be lodged on 6 th February, 2019 by Ravindra who is one of the eye witness to the incident in question.
8. Subsequent thereto the CCTV footages were extracted by the Investigating Agency from the cameras attached by Shailesh Shantilal Shah Saraf and during the course of the inspection of the said CCTV footage, it was noticed that the petitioner was present on BGP. 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 08:13:37 ::: (7)-WP-574-20.doc.
the spot of the incident. The fact remains that the transcript of the CCTV footage was shown to the another eye witness, namely Pritam and he has specifically identified the petitioner as one of the accused who has actively participated in the commission of crime. The statements of Pritam recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on the basis of CCTV footage sufficient demonstrates the prima-facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question. Even other witnesses, namely Prasad, Abhijeet, Sumeet etc. have named the petitioner as one of the accused who has actively participated in the offence, as could be inferred from the perusal of the charge-sheet. That being so, no case for quashing is made out.
9. The petition as such stands dismissed.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 08:13:37 :::