Bombay High Court
Mahesh Munna Pal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 285
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
1/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.922 OF 2018
Mahesh Munna Pal ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Subir Sarkar, i/b Mr. S. H.
Nimbalkar, for the Applicant.
Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.
API - Rajiv Patil, Kalyan Taluka Police Station, Thane (Rural), is present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2020
P.C. :
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on
bail in connection with C.R.No.I-123 of 2015 registered with the Kalyan
Taluka Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 507, 427, 120B of the Indian Penal Code;
under Sections 3(1), 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)
(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act
('M.C.O.C. Act').
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
2/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant is in custody since his arrest on 23 rd May, 2015 i.e. for more than
4 ½ years. He submits that although the applicant has been named in the
FIR, it is doubtful, whether the applicant was present at the spot, when the
alleged incident took place i.e. on 21st May, 2015. He submits that there is
no recovery of any weapon at the instance of the applicant. According to
the learned senior counsel, in the said incident which allegedly took place
on 21st May, 2015, not a single person has been injured. He further submits
that the prosecution case with respect to the conspiracy to kill the
complainant, is also doubtful, having regard to the fact that the place where
the alleged conspiracy is stated to have taken place was demolished by the
municipal authorities much prior to the date when the alleged conspiracy is
stated to have taken place, also pointing to the falsity of the prosecution
case.
4. Learned APP opposed the application. Learned APP has filed
an affidavit of Rajendra Madhavrao More, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Murbad Division, District - Thane (Rural). She submits that the
complainant as well as the other witnesses have disclosed the name of the
applicant as being present at the spot and of having fired in the direction of
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
3/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
the complainant and others. She submits that the applicant has cases
registered against him with the same police station i.e. Kalyan Taluka
Police Station. She, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant is
in custody for more 4 ½ years.
5. Perused the papers. According to the complainant - Sunil
Dhumal, he used to supply building material to Poddar Developers. The
complainant has alleged that the other co-accused was also in the business
of supplying building material and was upset, as the complainant was
supplying building material to Poddar Developers. It is alleged that on 11 th
February, 2015, some other co-accused came and abused and threatened
him. Admittedly, the applicant is not stated to have been amongst the said
persons, who abused and threatened the complainant on 11th February,
2015. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 20 th May, 2015, when
he was going alongwing his friends in a Duster car, the alleged incident of
firing took place. The complainant has stated that some of his friends were
following him in the Innova Car, when the incident took place on the
Murbad Road. He has stated that both the cars i.e. Duster and Innova were
being followed by 3 motorcycles. The complainant has stated that he had
identified the said persons and that the applicant was one of the said persons
on the motorcycle. According to the complainant, in the intervening night of
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
4/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
20th and 21st May, 2015, at about 12.55 a.m., Anup Gondhali, who was on
the motorcycle, overtook the complainant's car. Co-accused - Ganesh
Mhaskar is alleged to have been sitting on the said motorcycle as pillion
and that Ganesh is alleged to have held a pistol in his hand. According to
the complainant, Ganesh fired in his direction with a pistol, however, the
bullet missed him and hit the car. The complainant has also alleged that the
applicant had fired in the direction of the 2 vehicles i.e. Duster and Innova
Car.
6. It appears that the applicant has been named in the FIR and by
some of the witnesses, who were travelling in the Duster and Innova Car.
Admittedly, none received injuries in the said incident. There is no recovery
of any weapon at the instance of the applicant. The spot panchanama shows
that the bullet that was found at the spot was one, fired from Ganesh
Mhaskar's weapon. It also appears that there is recovery of a weapon at the
instance of Pandurang Sante. This Court in an order passed in Criminal Bail
Application of another co-accused - Santosh Gondhale, after having
considered the allegations against the said co-accused - Santosh i.e. of
hatching of conspiracy to kill the complainant observed that 'Prima facie,
the statement of the said witness that he was present at the time when
conspiracy was hatched appears doubtful, inasmuch as, admittedly, the
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
5/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
office of Anup Gondhali was demolished by the Municipal Authorities on
12th May, 2015. The same is evident from the statement of Navnath
Kavade, Police Constable, whose statement is on page 95 of the
application'. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in custody since 23rd
May, 2015 i.e. for more than 4 ½ years. Under M.C.O.C. Act, the
minimum sentence is 5 years.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody for more
than 4 ½ years and the evidence against him, the applicant be enlarged on
bail, on the following terms and conditions:-
ORDER
(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Court as well as to the concerned Police Station, in writing; ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
6/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
(iii) The Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Murbad and Kalyan Taluka Police Station, except for the purpose of attending the court case in Kalyan, on the dates given by the trial Court;
(iv) The Applicant shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
(v) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial and shall attend the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall not impede the conduct of the trial;
(vi) An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses (ii) to (v), shall be filed by the Applicant, in the Registry of the trial Court, within one week of his release;
(vii) It is made clear, that if there is breach of any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of Applicant's bail.
8. The Application is allowed and disposed of in above terms. ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::
7/7 29-ba.922.2018.doc
9. It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
10. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:53:33 :::