Bombay High Court
Sachin Suresh Devmare vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:25674
BA-3119-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3119 OF 2023
1. Akash Hanumant Burade
2. Rupesh @ Lalya Dashrath Survase ...Applicants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 655 OF 2023
Sachin Suresh Devmare ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Mr. Sajid Mahat i/by Amit Icham Advocate
for Applicant.
Ms.Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent - State.
Digitally signed
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
by ETHAPE
ETHAPE
24th JUNE 2024
DNYANESHWAR
RESERVED ON :
DNYANESHWAR ASHOK
ASHOK
Date: 2024.07.01
19:48:19 +0530
PRONOUNCED ON : 1st JULY 2024
PC.:
1. The Applicants, who are alongwith 24 co-accused in C.R.
No.244 of 2018, registered with Pandharpur City Police Station,
District Solapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B,
302, 303, 201, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("the Penal Code"), and Sections 3 & 4 read with Section 25
and Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)
D.A.ETHAPE 1 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act") have preferred these
Applications to enlarge them on bail.
2. The applicant Nos.1 and 2 in Bail Application No.3119 of
2023 are arraigned as accused Nos. 7 and 8. The applicant in Bail
Application No.655 of 2023 is arraigned as accused No.26.
3. As distinct roles have been attributed to the applicant in Bail
Application No.3119 of 2023 and Bail Application No.655 of 2023,
I deem it appropriate to decide both the Applications together, with
separate reasoning. The facts are noted in detail in Bail Application
No.3119 of 2023.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3119 OF 2023
4. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:-
(a) Gopal Bajirao Ankushrao (A18), is the leader of a
Organized Crime Syndicate styled as "Sirji". Gopal
Ankushrao (A18) and his associates have created a reign of
terror in and around Pandharpur city. Grave offences of
murder, attempt to commit murder, kidnapping for ransom
extortion and causing grievous hurt are committed by the
members of the "Sirji" gang.
D.A.ETHAPE 2 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
(b) Sandip Pawar (deceased), the son of the first
informant, was a Councillor of Pandharpur Municipal
Council. The deceased resisted illegal and unlawful activities
of Sirji gang. Resultantly, the clout of Gopal (A18) and the
"Sirji" gang was waning. Gopal (A18) and the members of
his gang, thus had a grudge against the deceased.
(c) The prosecution alleges that actuated by diverse
motives to eliminate the deceased, on 16 th December 2017,
initially accused Gopal (A18), Shital @ Vikas @ Vicky More
(A5), Sandip Adhatrao (A6) and Sunil Wagh (A25) hatched a
conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. Dada
Ghasani @ Piraji Lagade (A20), Digambar @ Diga Janrao
(A21), Shahrukh Shaikh (A22), Eknath Shinde (A23) and
Bablu Shinde (A27), were drafted in as confederates in the
said conspiracy. Deadly weapons and masks were provided
to the assailants.
(d) In pursuance of the said conspiracy on 18th March
2018, while the deceased was having tea at Hotel Shriram
Bhojnalaya, Station Road, Pandharpur, Akshay Surwase (A1),
Manoj Shirsikar (A3), Sandip Adhatrao (A6), Onkar Jadhav
(A11), Rais Khan (A14), Vishal Pawar (A16), Dada @ Piraji
D.A.ETHAPE 3 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
Lagade (A20), Digambar Janrao (A21), Shahrukh Shaikh
(A22), Eknath Shinde (A23), Bablu (Absconding A27), Sonu
Pukle (A13) and Sagar @ Khandu Bansode (A24), came
thereat on the motorcycles. They barged into Hotel Shriram
Bhojnalaya. Sandip (A6), Onkar (A11), Digambar (A21),
Bablu (A27) were armed with pistols. They shot at the
deceased. Akshay (A1), Manoj (A3), Rais Khan (A14), Dada
@ Piraji (A20) and Sagar (A24) gave blows by means of the
scythes on the head, face, hands, chest and ears of the
deceased in quick succession.
(e) The prosecution alleges in pursuance of the said
conspiracy the task of keeping a watch on the deceased was
interested to Pundalik Wanare (A2), Bhaktraj Dhumal (A4),
Rupesh Survase (A8), the applicant herein, Sachin
Waghmare (A9) and Pawan Adhatrao (A10) and Chintya @
Abhishek Survase (absconding A17).
5. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the
applicants were also the members of the Organized Crime
Syndicate, of which Gopal (A18) was the leader and the applicants
were also confederates in the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.
The applicants had kept a watch on the movements of the deceased
D.A.ETHAPE 4 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
and had informed the co-accused about the location at hotel
Shriram Bhojnalaya, on the day of occurrence.
6. The applicants came to be arrested on 22 nd March 2018.
Eventually, the provisions contained in MCOC Act, 1999 were
invoked and the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under MCOC Act, 1999.
7. Mr. Nikam, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted
that the role attributed to the applicants is that of keeping a watch
on the deceased and apprising the co-accused of the location of the
deceased. As an identical role was attributed to Pawan Adhatrao
(A10), who has been released on bail by an order dated 11 th August
2022 in Bail Application No.1100 of 2021, the applicants are also
entitled to the same dispensation. It was urged that qua Akash H.
Burade (A7), apart from the disclosure statement leading to the
recovery of the motorcycle, there is no other material to even
indicate that Akash Burade (A7) was in touch with the co-accused
nor any of the co-accused whose confessional statements have been
recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, 1999 have named the
applicant Akash Burade (A7) as a confederate in the alleged
conspiracy. It was submitted that the applicant has been in the
custody for more than six years. The charge has yet not been
D.A.ETHAPE 5 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
framed. In these circumstances, further detention of the applicant is
wholly unwarranted, submitted Mr. Nikam.
8. As regards Rupesh @ Lalya Dashrath Survase (A8),
Mr.Nikam would urge that not only the role attributed to Rupesh
(A8) is exactly identical to that of Pavan (A10) but this Court has
also dealt with the material which is sought to be pressed into
service against Rupesh (A8) in the said order. The prosecution
banked on the very same material which was sought to be pressed
into service against Pavan (A10). Thus, principle of parity applies
with full force.
9. In any event, the veracity of the statement of confidential
witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is eroded as it was
recorded after two years of the alleged incident. It was submitted
that the fact that the applicant had made calls to the co-accused in
close proximity to the alleged occurrence by itself does not have
any incriminating tendency as apart from Akshay Surwase (A-1)
rest of the co-accused are residents of Pandharpur. Moreover, the
prosecution has not placed on record the transcript of the
conversation. The mere fact that there is a CDR indicating that the
applicant was in contact with co-accused without anything more, is
of no legal assistance to the prosecution, urged Mr.Nikam.
D.A.ETHAPE 6 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
10. Lastly Mr.Nikam submits that none of the applicants have
any antecedents. The very invocation of the provisions contained
in MCOC Act, 1999 was wholly unwarranted in the absence of any
material to show that the applicants were the members of the
alleged Organized Crime Syndicate.
11. Ms.Mahalaxmi Ganpathy, the learned APP, stoutly resisted the
prayer for bail. It was submitted that the gravity of the offences
cannot be lost sight of. The deceased was killed in a broad day-light
by the co-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons. There is
overwhelming material to indicate that the deceased was killed in
pursuance of a well planned conspiracy. Qua the applicants,
according to Ms.Ganapathy, there is material to show that they
were keeping a watch on the deceased and on the day of
occurrence also, they had pursued the deceased. Banking heavily
upon the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the
Code, (page No.1562 to 1564), it was urged that, at this stage, it
cannot be said that there is no material to support the indictment
against the applicant. Ms.Ganapathy laid particular emphasis on
the CDR which indicates that Rupesh (A8) was in touch with the
co-accused even on the day of the occurrence.
12. To begin with, it is necessary to note that the prosecution
D.A.ETHAPE 7 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
does not allege that the applicants were either assailants or
members of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of which, the deceased was killed. The role attributed to the
applicants, in general, is that of being confederate in the conspiracy
to eliminate the deceased, and, in particular, of keeping a watch on
the movements of the deceased and apprising the co-accused about
the location of the deceased.
13. In the aforesaid backdrop, the nature of the material qua
Akash Burade (A7) and Rupesh Survase (A8), deserves to be
appreciated, albeit prima facie, distinctly. Qua Akash Burade (A7),
the only incriminating circumstance pressed into service appears to
be the discovery made by the applicant Akash Burade (A7) leading
to the recovery of a motorcycle bearing No.MH-13-CL-8929. The
memorandum of the disclosure statement indicates that the
applicant Akash Burade (A7) volunteered to show the house of his
maternal uncle Kailas Dahale, where he had kept the motorcycle on
which he had dropped Pundlik Wanare (A2) at Velarpur, and which
was used by him for keeping a watch on the deceased.
14. Even if the memorandum of disclosure of statement is taken
at par, prima facie, it appears that the fact that the deceased was
killed, was apprised by Pundlik Wanare (A2) to the applicant and
D.A.ETHAPE 8 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
thereupon the applicant had dropped Pundlik Wanare (A2) at
Velapur. This being the nature of disclosure statement allegedly
made by the applicant Akash Burade (A7), the admissibility of a
large part of the said statement in evidence, becomes a matter for
trial as the historical facts narrated by the applicant Akash Burade
(A7) cannot be said to be distinctly related to the facts discovered
pursuant to the said disclosure statement. It neither appears that
any of the co-accused named the applicant as confederate in the
confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC
Act, 1999. Nor there is any CDR which shows that the applicant
was in touch with rest of the co-accused.
15. As regards Rupesh Survase (A8), the submission of Mr.Nikam
that Rupesh Survase (A8) is similarly circumstanced, like Pawan
Adhatrao (A10), who has been released on bail, appears to be well
merited. While releasing Pawan Adhatrao (A10), this Court had
observed, inter alia, as under:-
17] The first of the two confidential witnesses informed
the learned Magistrate that prior to the day of incident,
the applicant and co-accused Rupesh (A8) were seen
roaming around Bhadule Chowk and Arihant Opticals.
On the day of occurrence, the applicant and co-accused
had followed the deceased. The second of the confidential
witnesses informed the learned Magistrate that he learned
from one Rahul Kaulge that the applicant and co-accused
Rupesh (A8) were keeping a vigil on the movements of the
deceased. On the day of occurrence, they had kept watch
on the deceased since 8.00 am. in the morning. The said
D.A.ETHAPE 9 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
witness further claimed that a couple of days prior to the
occurrence he had sounded of the deceased that few boys
were following whom, to which the deceased paid no
heed. Immediately preceding the occurrence, according to
the second witness, he had seen the applicant and co-
accused Rupesh (A8) following the deceased to hotel
Shriram Bhojnalaya.
18] The submission on behalf of the applicant that the
veracity of the claim of the aforesaid confidential witnesses
become suspect as their statements came to be recorded
belatedly cannot be lightly brushed aside. The statements
of both confidential witnesses came to be recorded on 24 th
January, 2020. The incident occurred on 18th March,
2018. The applicant came to be arrested on 20 th July,
2018. There is a time-lag of almost 22 months in
recording the statements of the confidential witnesses
from the date of the occurrence. In fact, the second
confidential witness, who professes to throw light on the
details of the alleged surveillance by the applicant and
Rupesh (A8) claimed that he was working in the office of
the deceased. The delay, in such circumstances, cannot be
said to be immaterial or inconsequential.
19] The second circumstance of being in constant touch
with the co-accused now deserves consideration. If the
second confidential witness is to be believed, on the day of
occurrence, the applicant and co-accused Rupesh (A8)
were seen continuously talking on phone with 2 to 3 other
persons in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence. The
prosecution has relied upon the record of the call details.
20] I have perused the said record. Indeed, the record
indicates that the applicant had telephonic conversation
with co-accused Akshay (A1), Rupesh (A8), Sandip (A6)
and Shital (A5) over a period of time. What is of critical
significance is the record of the conversation on the day of
occurrence, especially in the light of the role attributed to
the applicant. On the night intervening 17 th and 18th
March, 2018, at about 00.40 am. the applicant had an
incoming SMS from Akshay (A1) and on the day of
occurrence at about 1.08 pm. the applicant had an
incoming call from Rupesh (A8). The incident allegedly
occurred at about 1.00 pm. on 18th March, 2018. The
aforesaid call detail record, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, prima facie, cannot be said to be of such
frequency, duration or proximity as to lend support to the
statement of the second confidential witness that the
applicant and co-accused Rupesh (A8) were seen
continuously speaking on their phones with 2 to 3 persons,
after they allegedly followed the deceased to hotel Shriram
Bhojnalaya.
D.A.ETHAPE 10 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
21] I find substance in the submission of Mr. Nikam that in
the facts and circumstances of thBitstream Chartere case,
the fact that the applicant had received a single call from
co-accused Rupesh (A8) in proximity to the time of
occurrence, by itself, may not form a strong incriminating
circumstance. The further submission of Mr. Nikam that
the applicant had telephonic conversation, at different
points of time, with four of the co-accused, who also
happened to be the residents of Pandharpur, prima facie,
does not lead to the only hypothesis of the applicant being
a confederate in a11 ptlleged conspiracy, cannot be said to
be without substance, especially in the absence of any
overt act or other strong incriminating circumstance to
connect the applicant with the alleged offences.
16. The fact that the role attributed to the applicant is, by and
large, identical to that of Pawan Adhatrao (A10) is borne out by the
aforesaid observations in as much as similar material was
considered qua Pawan Adhatrao (A10) in which the name of the
applicant also finds mention. Nonetheless, I will briefly advert to
the circumstances pressed into service against the applicant.
17. Ms. Ganapathy, heavily banked upon the statement of Rahul
Kaulge recorded before the learned Magistrate under section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure on 24th January, 2020 wherein it
was stated that since 8 days prior to the occurrence, the applicant
and the co-accused Pawan Adhatrao (A10) were keeping a watch
on the deceased and on the day of occurrence also he had seen
both Rupesh Survase, the applicant, and Pawan Adhatrao (A10)
follow the deceased to Shreeram Hotel.
D.A.ETHAPE 11 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
18. As noted above, the statement of Rahul Koulge came to be
recorded after almost 22 months of the alleged occurrence. This
Court had further noted that the said witness claimed to have been
working in the office of the deceased and thus the aspect of delay
would assume more significance. Prima facie, the prosecution will
have to surmount the challenge on the count of delay in recording
the statement of the said witness.
19. Suraj Chauhan, another witness whose statement was also
recorded in the month of January, 2020 under section 164 of the
Code, stated that the applicant and Pawan Adhatrao (A10) used to
roam around Bahadule Chowk and Arihant Opticals. He claimed
that he was informed by Rahul Koulge that they were keeping a
watch on the deceased. On the day of occurrence the applicant and
Pawan Adhatrao (A10) had followed the deceased. The aspect of
delay again impairs the statement of Suraj Chouhan.
20. That leaves the circumstance of the CDR. The reasons which
weighed with this Court in releasing Pawan Adhatrao (A10) govern
the claim of the applicant Rupesh Survase (A8) for bail. It was
noted that the fact that the applicant Rupesh Survase (A8) had
called Pawan Adhatrao (A10) in proximity to the time of
occurrence, may not by itself form an incriminating circumstance
D.A.ETHAPE 12 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
since the applicant had telephonic conversation with four of the co-
accused who were residents of Pandharpur. Admittedly, the
transcript of the conversation is not placed on record. The aspect as
to whether the CDR alone would lead to the hypothesis of the
applicant being a confederate in the alleged conspiracy would
warrant consideration at the trial.
21. At this juncture, the fact that none of the applicants have any
antecedents assume critical salience, especially in the backdrop of
the fact that the applicants are sought to be roped in as members
of the organized crime syndicate. Undoubtedly, it is not necessary
that two charge-sheets for the offences punishable for more than
three years imprisonment must have been lodged against each
member of the organized crime syndicate. If it could be shown that
the members of the organized crime syndicate indulged in
continuing unlawful activity, singularly or jointly, either as
members of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate, the offence of 'organized crime' as envisaged by MCOC
Act, 1999 can be said to have made out. Continuing unlawful
activity is qua the organized crime syndicate and not each member.
A useful reference, in this context, can be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs. State of
D.A.ETHAPE 13 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
Maharashtra and Ors.1. What has to be established is the nexus
between the individual accused and the organized crime syndicate.
For that purpose, the role attributed to the accused and the
antecedents assume significance.
22. In the case at hand, the role attributed to the applicants and
the nature of material arrayed against the applicants, coupled with
the absence of antecedents, prima facie, justifies an inference that
the applicants may not be guilty of the offence for which they have
been arraigned. The absence of any antecedents also justifies an
inference that the applicants may not indulge in identical offences,
if released on bail.
23. In any event, the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the
applicants have been in custody since 2018. It is trite that a long
period of incarceration without a reasonable prospect of
expeditious conclusion of the trial, impairs the right to speedy trial,
a facet of the fundamental right guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It has been held that the statutory restrictions
in the matter of grant of bail melt down in the face of such a long
period of incarceration, without trial (Union of India vs. K.A.
Najeeb2).
1 2022 SCC OnLine Sc 1092
2 (2021) 3 SCC 713.
D.A.ETHAPE 14 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
24. In the facts of the case, having regard to the period of
incarceration of the accused as well as the number of witnesses
which the prosecution proposes to examine, these does not seem to
be a realistic prospect of conclusion of the trial in near future as
even the charge has not been framed till date. In such
circumstances, further detention of the applicants would impinge
on the constitutional guarantee of right to life and personal liberty.
25. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise discretion in favour of
the applicants.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2023
26. The Applicant Sachin Devmare (A-26) had allegedly
provided shelter to the assailants, who had travelled from Pune to
Pandharpur in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched to kill the
deceased.
27. Mr. Nikam, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that the only role attributed to the applicant is that of giving shelter
to the co-accused. The said accusation is sought to be substantiated
by the prosecution primarily on the strength of the confessional
statement of the co-accused purportedly recorded under Section 18
of the MCOC Act, 1999. However, those confessional statements
D.A.ETHAPE 15 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
are of no assistance to the prosecution as the co-accused have
disowned the confessional statements when they were produced
before the learned Magistrate. The retraction of the confessional
statements is almost instataneous. If the confessional statements
are eschewed from consideration, there is no material to even
remotely connect the applicant with either organized crime
syndicate or any member of the said syndicate. It was submitted
that the prosecution does not allege that the applicant was one of
the persons, who perpetrated the assault. Thus, there is no nexus
between the applicant and the alleged offences.
28. Mr. Nikam further submitted that the applicant cannot be
roped in as a member of the organized crime syndicate as well as
the applicant had no antecedents. An offence punishable under the
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 came to be
registered against the applicant while the applicant was allegedly
absconding. The applicant has been in custody since 29th August
2021. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
29. In opposition to this, Ms.Ganapathy, the learned APP, strongly
opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the applicant was
very much a confederate in the conspiracy as the hired assailants,
who were also privy to the conspiracy, stayed with the applicant at
D.A.ETHAPE 16 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
the latter's farm house. Apart from the confessional statements of
the co-accused, there is a statement of the neighbour of the
applicant which clearly indicates that the applicant had kept the
assailants at his farm house. The applicant was thus fully involved
in the conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. Moreover,
after the occurrence, for more than three years, the applicant was
absconding. He could be arrested only in the month of August
2021. In such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
30. Three of the co-accused namely, Bandu @ Nitin Bharat
Barangule (A-19), Dada Ghasani @ Piraji Lagade (A-20) and
Digambar @ Diga Janrao (A-21) made statements under Section 18
of the MCOC Act implicating applicant, as the person at whose
farm house the assailants, who had came from Pune, stayed on 17 th
and 18 March 2018. Bandu Barangule (A19) stated that on 17 th
March 2018 at the instance of Vicky More (A-5), he had taken four
of the co-accused to the farm house of the applicant. One of them
Digambar Janrao (A-21) was dropped thereat on Bandu's
motorcycle. In verification before the learned Magistrate, Bandu
Barangule (A19), however, disowned the said statement.
31. Dada Ghasani @ Piraji Lagade (A-20) also stated that on 17 th
D.A.ETHAPE 17 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
March 2018, one person carried them to the said field. They stayed
there overnight. Digambar Janrao (A-21) also stated that Bandu
Barangule (A19) had taken him and the co-accused Shahrukh
Shaikh (A22) and Dada Ghasani (A20) to the said farm house.
They stayed there overnight and on 18th March 2018 they
proceeded to the scene of occurrence and assaulted the deceased.
Both Digamber Janrao (A21) and Dada Ghasani (A20) disowned
the confessional statements before the learned Magistrate.
32. At this stage, the fact that co-accused had retracted the
confessional statements cannot be the sole consideration to draw
an inference that the accused may not be guilty of the offences for
which he has been arrayed. In a situation of the present nature, the
utility of defining and punishing the 'organized crime' comes to the
fore. The persons who facilitate the commission of the organized
crime by providing the logistical support, are equally complicit as
those who carry out the actual assault. Whether confessional
statements of the co-accused deserve to be discarded on account of
the fact that they retracted those statements, would be a matter for
adjudication at the trial.
33. Providing shelter and facilitating the stay of the assailants,
prima facie, indicates that the applicant was a confederate in the
D.A.ETHAPE 18 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::
BA-3119-2023.doc
conspiracy. I am, therefore, not inclined to accede to the submission
on behalf of the applicant Sachin (A-26) that he is entitled to claim
parity with Pavan Anil Aadhatrao (A-10) or for that matter Akash
Hanumant Burade (A-7) and Rupesh @ Lalya Dashrath Survase (A-
8).
34. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the applicant
had made himself scarce for three years. Therefore, this conduct of
the applicant would be a matter which may bear upon the
determination of the complicity of the applicant. This factor also
dissuades the Court from recording the satisfaction that the
applicant will not indulge in identical offences, if released on bail.
I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant Sachin Suresh Devmare (A-26).
Hence, the following order.
:ORDER:
(i) Bail Application No.3119 of 2023 stands allowed.
(ii) The applicant Nos.1 Akash Hanumant Burade and No.2 Rupesh @ Lalya Dashrath Survase in BA No. 3119 of 2023 be released on bail in CR No.244 of D.A.ETHAPE 19 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 ::: BA-3119-2023.doc 2018, registered with Pandharpur City Police Station, District Solapur, on furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicants shall not contact any of the co- accused and indulge in the activities identical to the one's for which he has been arraigned in this case.
(v) The applicants shall furnish their permanent residential addresses and contact details to the Police Inspector, Pandharpur City Police Station, within a period of one week of their release from the prison, and intimate the change, if any.
(vi) The applicants shall mark their presence at Pandharpur City Police Station on the first Monday of every Month in between 10.00 am. to 12.00 noon., for the period of one year, from the date of their release and, thereafter, on the first Monday of July, D.A.ETHAPE 20 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 ::: BA-3119-2023.doc August, September and October of each year, till the conclusion of trial.
(vii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Special Court.
(viii) Bail Application No.655 of 2023 preferred by applicant Sachin Suresh Devmare (Accused No.26) stands rejected.
(ix) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant or the co- accused and the learned Special Judge shall not be influenced by any of the observations in further proceedings in the Special Case arising out of CR No.244 of 2018.
(x) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
D.A.ETHAPE 21 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2024 12:28:05 :::