Bombay High Court
Somnath Premshankar Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2020
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/5 4-ba-1435-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2019
Somnath Permshankar Pandey .. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr.Nilesh R. Pandey a/w.Mr.Sameer Vispute, Mr.Gajanan A.
Sangle and Mr.Rahul Bhosale i/b. M/s.Equa Juris, Advocate for
the Applicant.
Ms.A.A. Takalkar, APP for Respondent - State.
API Vivek Dabholkar, Kharghar Police Station, present.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2020.
P.C.:
The applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.I-50 of 2018, registered with Kharghar
Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the ofences punishable under
Sections 302, 452 and 120(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
("IPC", for short).
Digitally 2 The charge - sheet in this case is already fled and the
signed by
RajeP.
RajeP. Aher case is pending before Court of Sessions Raigad at Alibaug vide
Aher Date:
2020.12.18 Sessions Case No.51 of 2018. First Information Report ("FIR", for
16:11:12
+0530
rpa 2/5 4-ba-1435-19.doc
short) in this case is lodged on 6th February, 2018, by one
Yogendra Chhediram Kanojia, who was brother of the deceased.
He has stated in his FIR that on 6 th February, 2018, at about
07:12 p.m., he was informed that his brother Mahendra Kanojia
was assaulted by three unknown persons by entering in his shop.
The informant's brother succumbed to his injuries. Postmortem
notes show that the deceased had sufered as many as 27 injuries
and the cause of death was mentioned as "Death due to multiple
injuries on body with superfcial to deep burns 15-20%". The
prosecution case is that the deceased was assaulted with
weapons like iron rods and he was also attacked with acid. In all,
six accused were arrested. The motive behind the murder was
enmity between one Lalji Prasad and the deceased.
3 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
there is no material against the applicant to show his involvement
in the crime. The Sessions Court while rejecting the application
for bail has wrongly observed that the statement of witnesses
reveal that the applicant accused has directed the other accused
to go to the shop of the deceased Mahendra Kanojia to threaten
him and latter on the said accused went to the shop of deceased
and assaulted him, which resulted into his death. There are no
statements involving him in incident of assault or instigating co-
rpa 3/5 4-ba-1435-19.doc
accused to assault deceased. It is further submitted that the
applicant is employeed with the factory at Kalamboli. On 6th
February, 2018, which is the date of incident and 7 th February,
2018, the applicant was on duty. He relied upon the attendance
sheet. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sunil
Ramprasad Bharti, who is similarly placed has been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 6th August, 2019. The applicant is
in custody from 8th February, 2018. There are no criminal
antecedents against him.
6 Learned APP submitted that the involvement of the
applicant was disclosed during the course of investigation. On
instructions, she did not dispute that the involvement of the
applicant was based on the statement under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. There is no eye witness to the incident. It is further
submitted that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at this
stage. Grant of alibi in respect to the co-accused who had been
granted bail was taken into consideration on the basis that there
was a statement of employer, that he was on duty.
7 There is no eye witness to the incident. There is no
evidence of any witness indicating that the applicant was present
at the scene of ofence and or that he instigated others to assault
rpa 4/5 4-ba-1435-19.doc
the deceased. There is no enmity between the applicant and the
deceased. Assuming that the plea of alibi taken by the applicant
is a disputed question of fact, on the ground that there is no
substantial evidence to show his involvement, bail can be granted
to the applicant. The co-accused Sunil Ramprasad Bharti had
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6 th August, 2019 in
Criminal Bail Application No.575 of 2019. In the circumstances, I
pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Bail Application No.1435 of 2019, is allowed;
(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-50 of 2018, registered with Kharghar Police Station, which is subject matter of Sessions Case No.51 of 2018, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report concerned police station once in three months on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further orders;
rpa 5/5 4-ba-1435-19.doc
(iv) The applicant shall furnish details of his place of residence to the investigating oficer;
(v) Bail Application No.1435 of 2019, stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)