Allowed

Dattatraya Vitthal Mane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Aug 2006APPLN/1904/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1904 of 2006 granted bail to applicants charged with murder and related offences. The court was satisfied that prima facie the case was doubtful and agreed to conditions restricting movement from Solapur and Shegaon.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs.10,000 each, residence restriction outside Solapur and Shegaon, periodic reporting, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

Dattatraya Vitthal Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1904 OF 2006

¶5

 Dattatray Vitthal Mane & Ors. .. Applicants

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

 Mr.A.P.Mundergi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ujwal
 Agandsurve for applicants

¶9

 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State.

¶10

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶11

 DATE : 23rd August 2006

¶12

 P.C.

¶13

 . Heard Mr.Mundergi, learned Senior Counsel

¶14

¶15

 and Ms.Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for State.

¶16

 2. Applicants have been arrested on 20th
 September 2005 in connection with C.R.No.211 of
 2005 alleging offences punishable under section
 302, 120B, 201, 34, 143, 147 to 149 and 341 of
 I.P.C.

¶17

 3. F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the
 deceased on 20th September 2005 based upon which
 the offence has been registered. Investigation
 is complete and charge sheet is filed.
 Application of the applicants for bail who have
 been in custody from 20th September 2005 is

¶18

 rejected on 10th March 2006 by the trial court.

¶19

 4. The prosecution has mainly relied upon a
 statement of one Shubhangi Mane, copies of which
 are annexed to this application.

¶20

 5. Mr.Mundergi points out that the girl

¶21

¶22

 Shubhangi who is residing at Solapur with her
 family which is carrying on a restaurant business
 was familiar with and rather related to, from
 Mother side, to one Somnath Hanmanta Mane
 (deceased). He was frequenting their house hold.
 Upon acquaintance, which developed into some sort
 of attraction for each other, the girl left
 Solapur with Somnath and travelled for about five
 days with him. The statement of the girl is that
 she was not allowed to contact her residence at
 Solapur. Although, Somnath never misbehaved with
 her, the statement is that she was accompanying
 him to all places including Mumbai. In the
 statement there is apparent inconsistency
 because, according to Mr.Mundergi, the two left
 Mumbai for Shegaon and after Darshan at Shegaon,
 a room was booked at a lodge at Shegaon. Somnath
 left the girl in the room. At about 7.00 p.m.
 on 28th August 2005, first applicant and Premnath
 who are both accused came at the said place
 (lodge room) and told Somnath and the girl

¶23

¶24

 Shubhangi to accompany them. At the bus stand,
 they took a vehicle Tata Sumo bearing

¶25

 No.MH-13-A-5268. They came to Khamgaon on way to
 Solapur. The Driver was sitting at the Driver’s
 seat and next to him the girl as well as Premnath
 were sitting. Thereafter, she states that she
 was sleeping and when she woke up on 29th August
 2005 at about 6.00 a.m. she saw that the car was
 stationary and Somnath was not in the vehicle and
 he had ran away. She heard everybody in the
 vehicle discussing about the same. She reached
 Solapur at about 10 in the night. Thereafter,
 she narrated the episode to her parents.

¶26

 6. Her two statements are recorded and I
 have perused the same with the assistance of
 Mr.Mundergi and Ms.Deshmukh. In the first
 statement recorded she does not depose about
 Somnath being assaulted or attacked by persons
 travelling in the vehicle. In the second
 statement she states that everybody including the

¶27

¶28

 driver were assaulting and beating the deceased.
 Spanner and other car tools were utilised for
 this purpose. She has also stated that the
 deceased was beaten and when the car reached
 Osmanabad, the deceased was speechless. She
 states that because her cousins were occupying
 the back-seat she did not even dare to look at
 what is happening in the back-seat and she states
 that on 29th August 2005 at about 5.00 a.m. The
 vehicle reached her to her house. i.e. Solapur.

¶29

 7. From the aforesaid, prima facie, the case

¶30

 of the applicants continuously beating and
 assaulting the deceased in a running vehicle and
 because of the injuries sustained, he succumbed
 and hence the offence punishable under section
 302 is made out, appears doubtful. Considering
 the relations of the girl and deceased, the
 submission, that she would raise a hue and cry
 when he was beaten up, has substance.

¶31

¶32

 8. A specific averment in the application is
 that the dead body of the deceased is not
 recovered. The statement/opinion of the local
 civil surgeon has also been brought to my notice.
 Ms.Deshmukh would controvert it by pointing out
 that human bones wrapped in a shawl of the girl
 have been discovered. These are discovered from
 the Bhima river Basin. Prima facie, when the
 deceased was allegedly beaten during journey,
 this assertion is also doubtful.

¶33

 9. In my view, considering the aforesaid
 materials and the investigations having been
 completed and charge sheet filed and it being not
 pointed out that there are any criminal
 antecedents, applicants deserve to be enlarged on
 bail.

¶34

 10. However, Ms.Deshmukh points out that
 co-accused have been enlarged on bail but
 complaints have been registered against them of

¶35

¶36

 threatening witnesses. In such circumstances,
 when I put a query to Mr.Mundergi, he had on his
 own agreed that applicants would reside at Mohol,
 a place about 50 kms. away from Solapur and
 would not enter limits of Solapur city and
 Shegaon city limits till the conclusion of the
 trial. Thus, bail is granted subject to the
 condition that the applicants staying away from
 Solapur and Shegaon city limits.

¶37

 11. Hence, the following order:-

¶38

 i) The applicants, viz., (1)
 Dattatray Vitthal Mane, (2) Kumar Vitthal
 Mane and (3) Shashikant Narayan Nichal
 arrested in connection with C.R.No.211 of
 2005 registered with Fouzdar Chawdi
 Police Station shall be enlarged on bail
 subject to furnishing a personal bond of
 Rs.10,000/- each with one or two local
 sureties in the like amount.

¶39

¶40

 ii) The bail is granted subject to
 condition that the applicants will remain
 present before the Mohol police station
 twice in a fortnight between 11.00 a.m.
 and 1.00 p.m. till conclusion of the
 trial.

¶41

 iii) The order of bail will be given
 effect only after the applicants furnish
 to the investigating officer the details
 about their place of residence and
 addresses where they propose to stay
 after they are enlarged on bail. The
 applicants will not change their
 residential address thereafter till the
 conclusion of trial without prior
 intimation to the Investigating officer.

¶42

 iv) The bail is granted subject to
 condition that the applicants shall not

¶43

¶44

 directly or indirectly, make any
 inducement or threat to any prosecution
 witnesses and shall not in any manner
 tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶45

 v) The applicants shall cooperate
 with the learned Trial Judge for
 expeditious disposal of the case. Any
 attempt by the applicants to delay the
 trial may be a ground for cancellation of
 bail.

¶46

 vi) Any observation made in this
 order shall not be construed as any
 finding or any expression of opinion on
 the merits of the case at the time of
 trial.

¶47

 vii) Application is disposed of in
 above terms.

¶48

¶49

 viii) Parties to act on an

¶50

 authenticated copy of this order.

¶51

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Dattatraya Vitthal Mane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Vitthal Mane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu Sharad Nemani Vs Vishwanath B.Goenka and Anr.

Ramdas Kashinath Meher and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Farook Hasan Mev Vs the State of Maharashtra

Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo Shrivasta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sameer Madhukar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Kumar Mewalal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra