Bombay High Court
Akshay Sanjay Bhosle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 July, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3465 OF 2019
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 896 OF 2021
Akshay Sanjay Bhosale ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant in B.A. No. 3465
of 2019.
Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for the applicant in Interim Application.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 30th JULY, 2021
PER COURT:
1. The applicant was arrested on 10 th November, 2018 in
connection with C.R. No. 779 of 2018 registered with Baramati City
Police Station for offences under Sections 302, 386, 387, 120-B r/w
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that the First
Information Report (for short 'FIR') is lodged by the wife of the
deceased. In the Year 2000, Dinesh Raosaheb Wayase was driving
auto rickshaw. He approached husband of the complainant for
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
work. At that time the husband of the complainant gave him
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date:
JAMADAR 2021.08.02
14:05:20
+0530
SLJ 1 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
domestic work. Dinesh Wayase committed theft, hence he was
removed by the husband of complainant. Due to that reason,
Dinesh Wayase used to quarrel with the complainant and her
husband. Thereafter, Dinesh Wayase obtained money from Ruturaj
Kale for running business, however he could not repay the said
amount to Ruturaj Kale. Hence Ruturaj Kale demanded his money
from Dinesh Wayase. Hence Dinesh Wayase alongwith his
associates and relatives namely Vinod Mane, Ganesh Vitthal Mane,
Lokesh Parshuram Mane, Sandip Mane, Anil S. Mane, Sunil Mane,
Gulab U. Mane attacked Ruturaj Kale and for that reason they were
in jail. While they were in jail, complainant's husband did not help
them for releasing them from jail, hence, on 9th November, 2017,
they burnt complainant's four wheeler. Complaint was lodged at
Baramati City Police Station. The Police arrested one Amin Inamdar
in the said incident. Amin Inamdar disclosed the names of Dinesh
Wayase, Ganesh Mane and Lokesh Mane in the said crime. After
some days, Lokesh Mane and Bitya alias Sachin Ramesh Jadhav
forcibly took the husband of the complainant to meet Ganesh Mane
and Dinesh Wayase. After one hour the husband of the
complainant was dropped by them at his residence. That time,
complainant's husband told her that he was taken near gymkhana
of Vinod Mane at Tandulwadi Road, and Vinod Mane, Dinesh
SLJ 2 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
Wayase, Ganesh Mane, Anil Mane, Sunil Mane, Prem Wayase,
Avinash Jadhav, Sandip Mane, Ravi Makar, Motha Bitya, Gulab
Uttam Mane had demanded extortion amount of Rs.1 Lakh from
him and they threatened him that if he fails to give said extortion
amount, he would be killed. After 2-3 days, the deceased gave Rs.1
Lakh to them. However, due to fear they did not lodge any
complaint. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons used to demand
money from him. Since they were demanding money from time to
time, community meeting was held and in the said meeting, Dinesh
Wayase in front of community people, had stated that they wanted
to assault the husband of the complainant instead of assaulting
Ruturaj Kale. One Vaishnavi @ Cheemi Jadhav was instigated by
Vinod Mane and others to register offence of rape and POCSO
against the husband of complainant. Vaishnavi had called Kedar
Jadhav and informed him to intimate complainant's husband to
give money, or she would lodge rape case against him. Vaishnavi
Cheemi lodged FIR alleging rape and offences under POCSO Act
against complainant's husband. It is also case of the complainant
that after registration of the said crime, they had also demanded
Rs.30 Lakhs from the husband of complainant. On 26 th October,
2018 Anil Mane had threatened them of dire consequences. On
5th November, 2018 at about 12.30 p.m., informant and her
SLJ 3 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
husband went to Samata Nagari Patsanstha. Thereafter, deceased
dropped complainant at home and again went to Baramati
Hospital, where deceased was assaulted by means of sharp edged
weapons on neck and face. Deceased was lying pool of blood and
after reaching on the spot, the informant and her son took the
deceased to Silver Jubilee Hospital, where doctor declared him
dead. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant vide
C.R. No.779 of 2018 under Section 120-B, 386, 387, 302, 34 of IPC
was registered at Baramati City Police Station, Pune Rural, Dist.
Pune on 5th November, 2018 against Dinesh Wayase, Vinod S.
Mane, Ganesh V. Mane, Anil S. Mane, Sunil S. Mane, Prem. D.
Wayase, Avinash Jadhav, Sandip Mane, Cheemi alias Vaishnavi A.
Jadhav, Ravi Maker, Sachin R. Jadhav, Lokesh Parshuram alias
Dattatraya Mane and Gulab U. Mane and investigation was
commenced.
3. The applicant was arrested on 10 th November, 2018.
The applicant preferred application for bail before Sessions Court.
Application was rejected by order dated 17th August, 2019.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there
is no evidence to show the involvement of the applicant in the
crime. Undisputedly, the applicant was not alleged to be the
SLJ 4 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
assailant. There is no evidence to show that the applicant is
conspirator. The involvement of the applicant is allegedly shown to
be a person present with the other accused when the amount of
Rs.30 Lakhs were demanded from the deceased. It is submitted that
statements of witnesses assigning the said role were recorded after
statement of the arrested accused was recorded, who has allegedly
referred to presence of the applicant. It is submitted that the
statement of the Pandurang Wayase was recorded on 6th November,
2018. He is the co-accused in this case. Statement of Kedar Jadhav
was recorded on 6th November, 2018. He has referred to the
incident of demand of Rs.30 Lakhs. However, the involvement of
the applicant is not disclosed. Supplementary statement of Kedar
Jadhav was recorded on 7th November, 2018, wherein it is stated
that at the time of demand of extortion amount of Rs.30 Lakhs, the
applicant was present. Statement of Prem Jadhav was recorded on
7th November, 2018 and Vikrant Jadhav on 11th July, 2018.
Although the provisions of MCOC Act were invoked in this case, the
same were not applied to applicant.
5. Learned APP submitted that the accused had conspired
to commit the offence. There are several circumstances to show the
involvement of the applicant. She relied upon the statement of
SLJ 5 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
Kedar Jadhav, Prem Jadhav and Vikrant Jadhav. There was
conspiracy hatched by the accused. There was demand of amount
of Rs.30 Lakhs in the presence of the applicant. Two other cases
were registered against the applicant in the past.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Rajesh More
submitted that the statements of witnesses as stated above refers to
involvement of the applicant. He pointed out order passed by the
co-ordinate bench rejecting the application of co-accused Anil Mane
and the observations made therein with regards to the conspiracy
and the inferences to be drawn while dealing with the charge of
conspiracy.
7. I have perused the statements on record. The applicant
has not been named in the FIR. The complainant has given
background about past incidents involving Dinesh Wayase and his
associates. No role is attributed to applicant. The applicant is not
even named in FIR. She has referred to incident of demand of
Rs.30 Lakhs by several persons, threats of false implication in rape
and POCSO case. However, involvement of applicant is not
reflected. FIR was lodged against other accused. The applicant is
not the person amongst assailants, who assaulted deceased Krishna
Jadhav. Statement of Kedar Jadhav was recorded on 6 th November,
SLJ 6 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
2018. He has given details of incidents which had occurred prior to
the assault upon the victim. He has referred to the incident of
demand of the amount Rs.30 Lakhs. Names of all the persons were
present at that time are reflected in the statement except the
applicant. Surprisingly, charge-sheet includes statements of
accused. The co-accused Dinesh @ Pandurang Wayase was arrested
and during his interrogation he has allegedly disclosed the name of
the applicant as one of the person, who was party to conspiracy.
The statement is obviously not admissible in evidence. There is no
evidence to show that applicant is one of the conspirator to kill
deceased. Supplementary statement of Kedar Jadhav was recorded
on 7th November, 2018, wherein he stated that applicant was
present with other accused, when demand of Rs.30 Lakhs was
made with deceased. Statement of Sikandar Shaikh was recorded.
He has not referred to involvement of applicant. Thereafter,
statement of Vijay Jadhav, Prem Jadhav etc. were recorded in
similar manner. Apart from there statements, there is no evidence
to show complicity of applicant in the crime. Provisions of MCOC
Act were not invoked against applicant. He is in custody from 10 th
November, 2018. Further detention of the applicant is not
necessary. Case for grant of bail is made out.
SLJ 7 of 8
25- Ba-3465-2019-With-Ia-896-2021.doc
8. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 3465 of 2019 is allowed;
(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 779 of 2018 registered with Baramati City Police Station, Dist. Pune, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) The applicant shall report concerned Police Station once in three months on first Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till further order;
(iv) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight weeks in lieu of surety.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.
(vi) Bail Application as well Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
SLJ 8 of 8