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 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Karansingh Chandrapalsing Gaherwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2022

Author: S. G. Mehare

Bench: S. G. Mehare

                                   1                       922-BA.464-22.odt


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      922 BAIL APPLICATION NO.464 OF 2022

                  KARANSINGH CHANDRAPALSING GAHERWAL
                                 VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                       ...
             Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ostwal Abhaykumar Dilip
                 APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.
                                      ...

                                 CORAM :     S. G. MEHARE, J.
                                 DATE :      06.07.2022

     PER COURT :-



     1.      Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned

     APP for the respondent-State.



     2.      Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that

     there is no evidence at all against the applicant that he has

     plotted the conspiracy to commit the murder. The C.D.R.

     evidence is the weakest piece of evidence. Referring to the

     various statements of the witnesses, he has argued that none

     of the witnesses has stated that any time the present applicant

     sent his brother to threaten the witnesses from the family of

     the complainant that if they did not take the murder case back,

     their life would be in danger. He has vehemently argued that

     most of the accused against whom the serious allegations have




::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::
                                  2                       922-BA.464-22.odt


     been made, particularly the main conspirator, are also released

     on bail. He would point out that initially, when the report was

     lodged, it was informed to police that it was an accidental case.

     The record supports his contention. He has vehemently argued

     that whatsoever the C.D.R. details have been collected by the

     Investigating Officer do not reveal that there was a

     communication between the applicant and his brother.

     Whatsoever the C.D.R. record is collected, it pertains to the

     three months before the incident. The investigation is based on

     suspicion that Pooja, the alleged main conspirator, has sold her

     ornaments to pay the money to the contract killer. The amount

     of Rs.1,50,000/- has been recovered from one of the co-

     accused, and he has also been released on bail. Whether the

     death is homicidal or not is a question of fact that can be

     ascertained by appreciating the prosecution evidence. The

     prosecution has no evidence that the main conspirator Pooja

     met the co-accused in jail at any point in time. The jail visit

     register reveals that she either met his brother or father, who

     was behind bars for the offence of murder. In the absence of

     direct evidence, at least sending his brother to threaten the

     complainant's witnesses to take the murder case back against

     the family of Pooja, the applicant may be released on bail. The

     memorandum statement under Section 27 is not evidence




::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022                  ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::
                                   3                      922-BA.464-22.odt


     except for the discovery at the instance of the person making

     such statement. The witnesses have made a bare allegation

     that the applicant is the conspirator.



     3.    It has also been argued that the applicant has been behind

     bars since 16.01.2020. The prosecution has discharged a few of

     the accused after registering the crime on the statement of the

     witnesses. This shows that the first informant and witnesses

     were not sure who was actually involved in the crime. The

     statement might have been made on hearsay or surmises.

     Howsoever the suspicion is strong. It cannot take the place of

     proof. He also added that the charge sheet is filed. There is no

     substantial evidence to link the applicant to the alleged

     conspiracy. Therefore, he may be released on bail.



     4.      Learned APP referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by

     State and would vehemently argue that Pooja had arranged the

     money to pay to the contract killer. She had sold her golden

     ornaments, and there is evidence that the money was paid to

     one of the co-accused. There are witnesses stating that the

     applicant was in jail, and his brother Govind threatened them

     to take the case of murder back; otherwise, their life may be in

     danger. He has strongly relied on the C.D.R. and argued that




::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022                  ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::
                                  4                         922-BA.464-22.odt


     there was consistent communication on the phone. This strong

     circumstance is sufficient to prima facie hold that the applicant

     was one of the conspirators committing the murder of the

     deceased. Admitting the factum of the release of most of the

     accused, he prayed that the role played by the applicant was

     different from the role played by them. Therefore, the

     applicant shall not be released on bail.



     5.      The papers attached in the charge sheet revealed that at

     the very first stage after the incident, a report was lodged that

     it was an accidental case. Subsequent there to a case was

     developed that the co-accused were threatening the deceased

     to take the case back. Therefore, to disappear the evidence,

     the murder has been committed. Statement of witnesses barely

     reveals that the applicant was in jail, and his brother Govind

     went to the house of witnesses and threatened them to take

     the murder case back against the co-accused else their life

     would be in danger.



     6.      Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the

     various bail orders passed by this Court and the Court of

     learned Sessions Judge in the same crime. In each case, the

     Courts have recorded the findings regarding the role played by




::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::
                                   5                       922-BA.464-22.odt


     each accused. Admittedly, the jail visit register relied upon by

     the prosecution does not disclose that co-accused Pooja met the

     applicant at any time. It has been alleged that one Constable,

     Mr. More facilitated Pooja to contact the contract killer through

     the applicant. But, it would be difficult to comment at this

     juncture that at any time, the present applicant contacted the

     contract killer and has plotted the conspiracy in jail, where the

     accused are under surveillance for 24 hours.



     7.      Be that as it may, the main charge against the accused is

     'plotting the conspiracy'. The prosecution has remote evidence

     of C.D.R. The other co-accused, who have allegedly played

     serious roles in the offence, have been released on bail. This

     Court would not find it appropriate to go through the

     ingredients of criminal conspiracy. However, does not believe

     the prosecution case at this juncture that there was an

     agreement between all accused in jail for doing an unlawful

     act. No doubt, it is difficult to establish a conspiracy by direct

     evidence, but the circumstances should be strong enough to

     believe that the persons involved in the conspiracy were in

     agreement to commit the crime or unlawful act.




::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::
                                         6                        922-BA.464-22.odt


     8.      After having gone through the charge sheet and the

     papers submitted by the learned APP, this Court is of the view

     that the investigation is completed. The co-accused have also

     been released on bail. Therefore, there would be no propriety

     in keeping the applicant behind bars. The application deserves

     to be allowed. Hence, the following order :



                                       ORDER

(a) The application is allowed.

(b) The applicant Karansingh S/o Chandrapalsing Gaherwal, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two solvent sureties of the like amount in Crime No.382 of 2019, registered by Police Station M.I.D.C. Latur, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B of the I.P.C. on the following conditions :

(i) He shall not involve in similar offencesS.
(ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) He shall attend the trial on each and every effective date of hearing.
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::

7 922-BA.464-22.odt

(iv) He shall attend the Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer on written notice for material investigation.

(v) The applicant shall not enter Latur City except for the purpose of the present trial till conclusion of the trial.

(vi) Bail before the learned Sessions Court.

(vii) Needless to state that these observations are restricted to this bail application only.

(viii) Humdast allowed.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...

vmk/-

::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2023 00:43:44 :::