Bombay High Court
Devram Gulab Ghogare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 February, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2. ba 244.20.doc
Urmila Ingale
URMILA
Digitally signed
by URMILA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2022.02.26
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2020
17:30:33 +0530
Devram Gulab Ghogare ... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
------------
Mr. Aniket Ujjawal Nikam a/w Mr. Piyush Toshnival, Mr. Amit
Icham, Mr. Aashish Satpute i/b Mr. Vivek Arote, for
Applicant.
Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for State - Respondent.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2022
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent.
2. This is an application for bail in respect of C.R. No.
349 of 2017 registered with Umbraj Police Station, Satara.
The FIR is registered on 22/11/2017 lodged by the
complainant for the offences punishable under sections 396,
458, 120(b), 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sections
3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act').
1
2. ba 244.20.doc
3. It is alleged that in the intervening night between
21/11/2017 and 22/11/2017, 5 accused committed robbery.
The applicant is shown as original accused no.4. It is
alleged that while the informant was sleeping, his uncle
Riyaz called from his mobile to inform him that he heard
some sound near the door and suspected some thieves to
be around. The informant went to check on the ground
floor, when he found that the kitchen door was open. It is
the case of the informant that he found his grandmother
lying on the bed. Her bangles were broken and door of the
showcase was open. The gold ornaments worn by her were
missing from her person. The informant's grandmother was
taken to the hospital where she was declared to be dead. It
is the case of the informant that the gold ornaments to the
tune of Rs. 4,93,500/- were stolen by the accused persons.
The main accused, namely Rukul Dashrath Chavan is still
absconding. The other accused along with the applicant
came to be arrested on 27/11/2017.
4. It is the prosecution's case that the applicant is
actively involved in the crime and was in contact with the
2
2. ba 244.20.doc
co-accused before, during and after the commission of the
offence. Learned APP relied upon the Call Details Record
('C.D.R.' for short) for the period between 01/10/2017 and
25/11/2017 to support the prosecution version that having
regard to the large number of phone calls made, it definitely
points to the applicant's complicity along with the other
accused in the commission of said offence. The materials
against the applicants are disclosed in the affidavit filed by
one Ranjit Jagannath Patil, Sub-Divisional Officer, Karad
Division, Satara. The allegation against the applicant is that
it is the applicant who dropped the co-accused on the
highway, near the scene of the offence and thereafter
picked them up. The prosecution relied upon the statement
of the witness namely, Kiran Narayan Shetty, who stated
that on 21/11/2017 at about 11.30 p.m. in the night, the
applicant along with his wife and child booked a room and
stayed in the room upto 3.15 a.m. The applicant left the
hotel room on 22/11/2017 at around 3.15 a.m. along with
his wife and child. The applicant has been identified by
witness Kiran Narayan Shetty during the Test Identification
3
2. ba 244.20.doc
Parade conducted before the competent authority. Learned
APP submitted that the main accused (Accused No.1)
namely Rukul Dashrath Chavan has formed an organised
crime syndicate with the other co-accused and during the
preceding years, they singly and/or jointly for and on behalf
of such organised crime syndicate, committed various
offences i.e. attempt to commit murder, house breaking,
dacoity, robbery by using criminal force etc. registered with
various police stations. The following cases are shown to be
registered against Rukul (accused No. 1)
Sr. Police Station C.R.Nos./Sections Status
No.
1 Nagar Taluka 175/2011 u/s 395 of IPC Acquitted
2 Nagar Taluka 198/11 u/s 395 of IPC Acquitted
3 Pathardi 551/2011 u/s 395 of IPC Court pending
4 Tofkhana 483/2011 Court pending
5 MIDC, Nagar 191/2011 u/s 395 of IPC Acquitted
6 MIDC, Nagar 193/2011 u/s 395 of IPC Acquitted
7 MIDC, Nagar 195/2011 u/s 395, 380 of IPC Acquitted
8 MIDC Nagar 200/2011, u/s 399, 402, of IPC Acquitted
r/w 3/25, 4/25 of Arms Act
9 Umbraj 351/2017, u/s 454, 457,380 of Court pending
IPC
5. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicant
that Rukul, the gang leader has also been acquitted in
4
2. ba 244.20.doc
respect of C.R. No. 551 of 2011 (item 3) registered with
Pathardi Police Station under section 395 IPC. As of now,
there are only two cases pending against Rukul i.e. C.R. No.
483/2011 registered with Tofkhana Police Station and the
present case with C.R. No. 349/2017 (inadvertently
mentioned as C.R. No. 351/2017 at item 9 of the chart).
6. So far as the applicant is concerned, the following
cases are registered against him.
Sr. Police Station C.R. Nos./ Sections Status
No
1 Umbraj 351/2017 u/s 454, 457, 380 of IPC Court pending.
2. Umbraj 349/2017 u/s 396, 458, 120-B, 109 Court pending.
of IPC and sections 3(1)(i)(ii),
3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act
(present offence)
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the
statement of the applicant's wife which was recorded on
25/04/2018. According to him, no reliance should be
placed on such statement as the same was recorded almost
after 5 months. There is delay in recording the statement.
He further submitted that the applicant was not actively
involved in the commission of offence. The other accused
were known to the applicant and role that is attributed to
5
2. ba 244.20.doc
the applicant is that of dropping the accused on the
highway and again picking them up in the early hours of
22/11/2017. The applicant was in the travel business
driving his own car.
8. Heard. The materials mainly relied upon against the
applicant are CDR details indicating that there have been
exchange of more than 50 calls between the applicant and
the other co-accused on 21/11/2017 and 22/11/2017, prior
thereto also there have been several calls exchanged. The
allegation against the applicant is that he dropped the
accused on the highway which was near the scene of the
offence and after commission of the offence, picked them
up and proceeded to drop them at their desired destination.
It is the prosecution case that the wife and son of the
applicant accompanied him and they stayed at a lodge.
This is the role attributed by the prosecution, but there is
nothing to indicate the applicant's direct involvement in the
offence. The prosecution relied upon the large number of
CDR calls made to demonstrate his complicity. There is no
recovery at the instance of the applicant. In my opinion,
6
2. ba 244.20.doc
prima facie, these materials are not sufficient to connect the
applicant with commission of offence.
9. Furthermore, so far as bar under section 21 of MCOC
Act is concerned, learned Counsel for the applicant relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prasad
Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 440 paragraph
95 being relevant reads thus :
"In the light of our above conclusions on the various
submissions, we are convinced that in respect of the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.1971/2010, namely, A-7, there is no
scope even for the limited purpose of Section 21(4)(b) to hold
that application of MCOCA is doubtful. We have held that the
said appellant A-7 had every nexus with all the three crimes,
namely, Parbhani, Jalna and Malegaon and, therefore, the bar
for grant of bail under Section 21 would clearly operate against
him and there is no scope for granting any bail. Insofar as the
rest of the appellants are concerned, for the purpose of
invoking Section 21(4)(b), namely, to consider their claim for
bail, it can be held that for the present juncture with the
available materials on record, it is not possible to show any
nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against for
their involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases,
namely, Parbhani and Jalna. There is considerable doubt about
their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, they are
entitled for their bail applications to be considered on merits.
10. So far as the applicant is concerned, prior to the
registering of C.R. No. 349/2017, there is no other offence
registered against him where he is shown as an accused
7
2. ba 244.20.doc
along with the other accused. Even in respect of C.R.No.
351/2017, which is registered post C.R.No.349/2017, the
applicant has been acquitted. Learned Counsel for the
applicant placed on record the order dated 20/08/2019
passed by the trial Court acquitting the applicant for the
offence registered against him in C.R.No.351/2017. It is
alleged that the applicant along with the other accused had
committed offence at two different places in the intervening
night of 21/11/2017 and 22/11/2017, the outcome of which
were these two C.Rs. There is a doubt about the
involvement of the applicant in respect of C.R.No.
349/2017. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the bar under
section 21 of the MCOC Act is not attracted. Needless to
mention, the observations made are limited to grant of bail
and shall not influence the trial. I am also inclined to grant
bail to the applicant in view of circumstance that the trial in
C.R. No. 349/2017 is even yet to commence and it has been
more than 4 years and 3 months since the applicant is in
custody. For all these reasons, though learned APP resisted
the applicant for grant of bail, I am inclined to grant bail to
8
2. ba 244.20.doc
the applicant. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed. (ii) The applicant be released on bail in respect of C.R. No. 349/2017 registered with Umbraj Police Station on
furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall not threaten the witnesses or tamper the prosecution evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall report to the Umbraj Police Station every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
(v) In the event the applicant commits similar or any other offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the trial Court for cancellation of this bail.
11. Application is disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 9