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 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Suresh @ Pinya Bharat Kapse And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2021

Author: M.G. Sewlikar

Bench: M.G. Sewlikar

                                            (1)                    905 ba 332.21

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           905 BAIL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2021

                             1. SURESH @ PINYA BHARAT KAPSE
                            2. BAPPA @ BAPU RAOSAHEB VIGHNE
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                             ...
                      Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S.
                      APP for Respondents/State : Mr. G.O. Wattamwar
                                             ...

                                        CORAM :   M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.
                                        DATE :    9th December, 2021

P.C.:-

                   This is an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for

releasing the applicants on bail in connection with Crime No.71/2016

registered with Chaklamba Police Station, District Beed under Section 307,

353 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., under Section 3/25, 3/27 of the Indian

Arms Act and under Section 39(1)/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.


2.                 Facts in brief are that the applicants are accused of the offences

under Section 307, 394 read with Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act vide

Crime No.65/2016 and under Section 302 read with Section 4/25 of the

Indian Arms Act in Crime No.40/2015. Applicants are accused of committing

murder of one policeman. In both these crimes both of them are absconding.



         ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:16:08 :::
                                         (2)                      905 ba 332.21



3.             The police station got the information that accused-Pinya was to

visit Shirur or Patoda, therefore police laid the trap. Accused-Pinya was found

proceeding on a motorcycle. He was a pillion rider. He was asked to stop but

he did not. Therefore, policemen while overtaking the motorcycle dashed

against the motorcycle of the accused-Pinya. Accused Pinya and the rider fell

down. Police officers went to apprehend them at that time they realised that

applicant no.1-Pinya was holding a country made pistol and he fired in the

direction of the police. But the police officials managed to evade it.

Thereafter, police officers in defence fired at both the accused. Both of them

received gun shot injuries. One of them received gun shot injury on the leg

and the other one sustained injury on thigh.          Accordingly, offence under

Section 307 of the I.P.C. came to be registered against both the applicants.


4.             Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar submits that the applicants are

alleged to have fired from a country made pistol. From the prosecution story,

it is evident that none of the police officers sustained any hurt because of the

firing from the country made pistol. He submits that, therefore, punishment is

under Section 307 with ten years of imprisonment. Applicants have been

behind the bars since 08.06.2016. Therefore, in terms of Section 436-A of the

Cr.P.C., applicants are entitled to be released on bail.




     ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:16:08 :::
                                         (3)                    905 ba 332.21

5.             Learned APP Shri Wattamwar submits that applicants have

criminal antecedents. So many criminal cases are pending against them. He

submits that if applicants are released on bail they are likely to pressurize the

witnesses. He further submits that the trial has started. Instead of releasing

the applicants on bail, the trial Court can be directed to dispose of the trial

within a specified period.


6.             Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar in reply submits that in most of

the cases the applicants have been acquitted. In other cases they are on bail.

He further submits that in terms of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., applicants are

entitled to be released on bail. Offence in question is not punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. He submits that in case of the offence in

which hurt is not caused offence is punishable with imprisonment extending

up to ten years.


7.             On perusal of the record, it appears that the applicants had fired

in the direction of the police officer by the name of Police Naik Kendre. The

officer ducked because of which the bullet did not hit him. Thus, this clearly

goes to show that the Police Naik in whose direction firing was done did not

sustain any injury. Therefore, the punishment for the offence will be ten years

under Section 307 of the I.P.C.




     ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:16:08 :::
                                              (4)                  905 ba 332.21

8.                In terms of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., if an accused is under

trial for more than five years, and if trial does not get concluded, such accused

shall be released on his personal bond or on furnishing surety. In the case at

hand, admittedly, the applicants have been in jail since 08.06.2016.

Therefore, today they have completed more than five and half years behind

the bars. Learned APP submits that applicant was in custody in other crime

also.


9.                On considering submissions of learned counsel Shri Ghanekar and

Shri Wattamwar learned APP for the State, it is apparent that the applicants

were arrested on 08.06.2016 and till date they are not released on bail which

means they are behind the bars for more than five years.                   Therefore, by

invoking previsions of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. applicants can be released

on bail as they have completed five years of imprisonment as under trial. In

this view of the matter, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. Hence

the following order is passed:

                                            ORDER
         I)       Application is allowed.
         II)      Applicants be released on PR bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one

solvent surety in the like amount each, in connection with Crime No.71/2016 under Section 307, 353 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., under Section 3/25, 3/27 of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 39(1)/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act registered with ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:16:08 ::: (5) 905 ba 332.21 Chaklamba Police Station, District Beed and on condition that applicants shall stay away from Beed District till the disposal of the trial and they are permitted to enter the district only for attending the dates fixed in the trial. . III) These observations are made only for the disposal of this application and the learned trial Court shall not get influenced by these observations and can come to its independent conclusion during trial.

[M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] mub ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 04:16:08 :::