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 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pranav Pradip Ramteke vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2024

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2024:BHC-AS:17977

                                                                                       903-ba-1079-2024.doc




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   BAIL APPLICATION NO.1079 OF 2024

             Pranav Pradip Ramteke                                            ...Applicant
                        vs.
             The State of Maharashtra                                         ...Respondent

             Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w. Ms. Shabana Shah, for the Applicant.
             Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent/State.
             Mr. P.R. Sawant, PI, Chembur police station.

                                                 CORAM :   N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE :    APRIL 16, 2024
             P.C.:

             1.      Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

             APP for the State.

             2.      The applicant, who is arraigned in C.R. No. 227 of 2023

             registered with Chembur police station for the offences punishable

             under sections 120-B, 302, 201, 328, 364, 346 and 347 of Indian

             Penal Code, 1860 seeks to be enlarged on bail.

             3.      The indictment against the applicant, co-accused and

             absconding accused runs as under:-

                     Rohini Kamble, the mother of Vishal Kamble (the deceased) is

             the sister of Pradip Ramteke, the absconding accused. Rohini

             Kamble had a bunglow at Chembur and also at Kolhapur. Pradip

             Ramteke intended to usurp those properties. A criminal conspiracy

             was thus hatched to eliminate the deceased and Rohini Kamble by

             Pradip Ramteke who is the father of the applicant and other co-

             Vishal Parekar                                                                            ...1




                  ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024                     ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 :::
                                                                 903-ba-1079-2024.doc




accused and absconding accused.

4.      In pursuance of the said conspiracy, Munir Pathan (accused

No. 2) called Vishal Kamble (the deceased) at hotel Neelkamal,

Chembur on the pretext of entering into a transaction for sale of

those properties. When the deceased and Rohini Kamble came

thereat, they were abducted and kept in a villa at Panvel. Jyoti

Waghmare (accused No. 1) administered sedative injection to the

deceased and Rohini Kamble. Jyoti Waghmare (accused No. 1),

Munir Pathan (accused No. 2), Raju Darvesh (accused No. 4) and

Rohit Admane @ Musa Parkar (accused No.3), a cousin of the

deceased, allegedly killed the deceased and dumped the body of the

deceased in the State of Gujrat. Rohini Kamble was abducted and

detained at various places in the States of Rajasthan, and at

Goregaon in Mumbai. It is alleged that the applicant was also privy

to the said conspiracy and the offences were committed with a view

to usurp the properties of the deceased and Rohini Kamble.

5.      Mr. Rathod, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted

that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The applicant

is sought to be roped in on the basis of the statements of the co-

accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant had

abducted the deceased and Rohini Kamble and on the basis of the

suspicion expressed by the cousins of the applicant on the ground


Vishal Parekar                                                                  ...2




     ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024           ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 :::
                                                                 903-ba-1079-2024.doc




that the father of the applicant intended to usurp the property of

Rohini Kamble and the deceased, the applicant has been falsely

implicated. There is no material which prima facie connects the

applicant with the alleged offences.

6.      In opposition to this, Mr. Khan, the learned APP, submitted

that the applicant has been named as one of the confederates in the

conspiracy in the disclosure statement made by the co-accused.

Moreover, two witnesses namely Dipti Phansalkar and Shilpa

Jekbas have named the applicant, his father Pradip Ramteke and

the co-accused Rohit Admane, another cousin of the applicant, as

the persons who they suspected to have abducted and killed the

deceased.

7.      I have carefully perused the material on record. The

prosecution proposes to press into service three circumstances qua

the applicant. First the disclosure statement made by the co-

accused second, the statements of the witnesses, who are the

relatives of both the deceased and the applicant, and, third, CDR

and co-location of the applicant and the co-accused.

8.      As regards the disclosure statement of the co-accused, first

and foremost, it is imperative to note that a disclosure statement

made by an accused is not a legal evidence against a non maker co-

accused. Secondly, once the co-accused came to be arrested, the


Vishal Parekar                                                                  ...3




     ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024           ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 :::
                                                                 903-ba-1079-2024.doc




conspiracy terminates and the statement made by the alleged co-

conspirator cannot be used against the another conspirator by

invoking the provisions contained in section 10 of the Evidence Act.

Thirdly, even if the disclosure statements of the co-accused are

taken into account, it does not appear that the applicant has been

specifically named as co-conspirator.

9.       In the first disclosure statement made by co-accused Rohit

Admane (accused No.3) on 3rd May, 2023, it was stated that on

account of instigation of Pradip Ramteke, Aruna Ramteke and the

applicant, a conspiracy was hatched and offences were committed.

Co-accused Raju Darvesh who made a disclosure statement on 5 th

May, 2023 did not name the applicant. In the second disclosure

statement dated 8th May, 2023 made by co-accused Rohit Admane

(accused No. 3), only Pradip Ramteke was named as an instigator.

Munir Pathan (accused No. 2) in the disclosure statement dated

10th May, 2023 also named Pradip Ramteke as an instigator.

Further disclosure statements of Rohit Admane (accused No. 3)

and Munir Pathan (accused No. 2) also named Pradip Ramteke as

conspirator and instigator.

10.      Secondly, the statements of Dipti Phansalkar and Shilpa

Jekbas, as is evident, are based on the suspicion they entertained

as the father of the applicant had allegedly embezzled the assets of


Vishal Parekar                                                                  ...4




      ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024          ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 :::
                                                                      903-ba-1079-2024.doc




late Vasant Kamble, the father of the deceased and thus Vasant

Kamble had ousted Pradip Ramteke from their property and,

therefore, Pradip Ramteke and his family members had a grudge

against the deceased and Rohini Kamble and desired to usurp their

properties.

11.      Thirdly, the CDR sought to be pressed into service showing

the exchange of calls between the applicant and Rohidas Admane

(accused No. 3) are required to be appreciated in the light of the

fact that the applicant and the co-accused Rohit Admane (accused

No. 3) are cousins. Even the co-location of the applicant and Rohit

Admane (accused No. 3) at Kolhapur, therefore, can not by itself be

an incriminating circumstance.

12.      In the aforesaid view of the matter, especially having regard

to the nature of the circumstances sought to be arrayed against the

applicant, I am persuaded to hold that a prima facie case to exercise

discretion is made out.

13.      I am, therefore, inclined to allow the application.

                 Hence, the following order.

                                       ORDER

1] The application stands allowed.

2] The applicant Pranav Pradip Ramteke be released on bail in C.R. No. 227 of 2023 registered with Chembur police station, on Vishal Parekar ...5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 ::: 903-ba-1079-2024.doc furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

3] The applicant shall mark his presence at Chembur police station on the first Monday of every month between 11 am to 1 pm for a period of three years or till conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier.

4] Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case. 5] The applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

6] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

7] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

Application disposed.


                                         (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)


Vishal Parekar                                                                  ...6




     ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024           ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2024 23:45:18 :::