Bhanudas @ Appa Prabhu Wagmode and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2933 OF 2006.

¶4

 1. Bhanudas @ Appa Prabhu Wagmode

¶5

 2. Dhananjay Prabhu Wagmode

¶6

3. Gowardhan Narhari Jagdale

¶7

 4. Santosh Khandu Dhass

¶8

 5. Suresh Gautam Kamble

¶9

 6. Datta Bhimrao Bhole .. Applicants.
 V/s

¶10

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶11

 Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. V.V. Purwant for
 the applicants.

¶12

 Mrs. J.P. Akolkar for original complainant
 Mr. S.S. Pednekar,A.P.P. for State.

¶13

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶14

DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2006.

¶15

 P.C.

¶16

 1. Heard Shri Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶17

 applicant, Mr. Pednekar, the learned A.P.P. for the

¶18

 state and Mrs. Akolkar appearing for the original
 complainant.

¶19

 2. Applicants are arrayed as accused in C.R. No.
 79 of 2006 registered at Pangari Police Station for
 offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,325, 427,

¶20

[2]

¶21

 147, 149, 506 of Indian Penal code. The applicants have
 been arrested in October, 2005 and are presently in
 custody.

¶22

 3 Their applications for bail after the
 charge-sheet have been filed came to be rejected by the
 learned District and Sessions Judge at Solapur on 22nd
 May, 2006.

¶23

 4. Mr. Gupte points out to me that in similar CR.
 two other accused applied for bail and this Court in
 Criminal Application NO. 2102/2006 have enlarged them
 on bail by imposing strict and stringent conditions.
 The applicants are also ready and willing to have such
 conditions imposed.

¶24

 5. It is his submission that on account of the
 local elections the political rivalry between two
 political parties in the locality has led to the
 incident. His submission is that the statement of
 Rangnath was recorded on 23rd October, 2005. Inviting
 my attention to that statement he submits that the
 deceased Sarjerao and Rangthan were proceeding towards
 the poling booth and that is how there were conflicts

¶25

[3]

¶26

 with the persons named in his first statement on 23rd
 October, 2005. He submits that the complainant has not
 named all the applicants as being involved in the
 assault and attack. However, in a supplementary
 statement recorded on 26th October, 2005 he alleges that
 some of the applicants are involved and it is alleged
 that they were carrying weapons and surrounded the
 deceased sarjerao and were threatening and abusing him.
 It is alleged that one of the applicants has assaulted
 the other witness Rajendra, who is nephew of the
 deceased Sarjerao. However, it is his submission that
 one Kerba Balbhim Dhass and Mahadeo @ Anna Namdeo Dhass
 have been enlarged on bail. The present applicants have
 not been named or in any event have been attributed
 identical role. In such circumstances, the applicants
 deserves to be released on bail not only on the grounds
 of parity but also because no prima facie case is made
 out against them.

¶27

 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pednekar submits that
 the chart which is produced before me would indicate
 that one of the applicants had weapons which were used
 in the assault and attack. while it is true that the
 deceased and others have been assaulted and there is

¶28

[4]

¶29

 nothing in so far as the statement of Ranganath which
 would indicate that deceased was assaulted, yet,
 offences alleged are serious. Considering the political
 rivalry between NCP and Shivsena at local level and the
 prosecution witnesses coming from the same village, this
 is not a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.
 More than six witnesses have been examined and trial is
 in progress. He submits that the applicant No.3
 Govardhan has been named by one relation who has been
 charged with threatening the witness. In such
 circumstances, no case for any discretionary relief is
 made out, the application be rejected.

¶30

 7. The original complainant’s Counsel has invited
 my attention to the affidavit placed on record. She
 submits that as far as Govardhan (applicant No.3) is
 concerned, he has been convicted by this Court and his
 appeal is pending before the Hon’ble supreme Court.
 While enjoying liberty in pursuance of such interim
 direction he has taken part in the incident and
 therefore, considering his and others overt act and
 political rivalry in the area, so also the sensitive
 atmosphere this Court shall not entertain the present
 application.

¶31

[5]

¶32

 8. After perusing the application and the annexures

¶33

 thereto including the statement of the material
 witnesses, the chart produced and affidavit of the
 original complainant I am of the view, that in Criminal
 Application NO. 2102/2006, this Court has discussed the
 prosecution case in brief and the role attributed to
 co-accused who are more or less identically placed. In
 fact Kerba and Mahadeo @ Anna who were applicants before
 this Court were named in the first statement and have
 been consistently named by other witnesses as well
 including nephew of the deceased, yet, this Court
 considered the entire facts and circumstances, thought
 it fit to enlarge them on bail. There are stringent
 conditions imposed and needless to state that any breach
 thereof would entail the bail being cancelled. However,
 nothing has been pointed out to me, which would be a
 distinguishing feature so as to deny bail on grounds of
 parity with the other accused. That apart, I have
 perused with the assistance of the learned Counsel
 appearing for both the sides, the statements and I find
 in the light of the political rivalry in the first and
 second statement of Rangnath when two persons were
 supposed to be proceeding towards booth the attack took

¶34

[6]

¶35

 place. However, he does not name the applicants. . In
 the further statement recorded others are also been

¶36

 named . Pertinently, it is pointed out that the other
 complainant group belongs to Nationalist Congress Party,
 were as the applicants belong to shivsena. It is over
 choice of a candidate to whom they should vote that the
 entire dispute seems to have arisen. In such
 circumstances, with stringent conditions identical order
 can safely be passed. Apart from pointing out that
 there is a non-cognizable complaint pending against
 applicant No.3 and that he is enlarged on bail by the
 Hon’ble Supreme Court as far as other applicants are
 concernd nothing is pointed out. The applicant No.3
 also can be prevented from entering the place as has
 been directd in the case of other accused by this court.
 Hence, the following order would serve the ends of
 justice.

¶37

 . One of the condition is therefore, that they
 should be directed to stay out of Solapur district. In
 the circumstances, pending their trial in pursuance of
 C.R. No.79/2005 registered by the Pangari Police
 station, the applicants may be released on bail in the
 sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety each in the like

¶38

[7]

¶39

 amount subject to condition that they will stay out of
 solapur District. Before being released on bail, they
 will furnish their addresses to the Jailor where they
 intend to stay and will report to the Station House
 Officer of the nearest police station once a week till
 the disposal of the trial. On being released on bail,
 they will also disclose their address to the
 investigating officer, Pangari Police Station, within a
 period of one week from the date of release. They will
 be entitled to enter Solapur town only on the dates when
 the trial is listed for hearing and for the purposes of
 attending the trial but even on these dates, they will
 not enter Barshi Taluka. It is clarified that these
 strict conditions are imposed not withstanding the fact
 that one of the accused is said to be 50 years of age.
 The other objective of passing this order is also to
 grant protection to the witnesses who hail from the same
 village so that the witnesses may not be tampered. It
 is made clear that violation of any of the condition
 would result in cancellation of bail. Application
 stands disposed off.

¶40

( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Bhanudas @ Appa Prabhu Wagmode and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanudas @ Appa Prabhu Wagmode 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

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

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh Vs Mukund Sadashiv Ranade and Anr.

Amol Pandurang Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Ranjan Singh @ Guddusingh Thakkur Vs the State of Maharashtra