Allowed

Uday Manohar Warekar and Anr. v. the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2009APPLN/4365/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to two helicopter helpers accused of placing stones/gravel in a helicopter gearbox under the 1982 Civil Aviation Act. The court held that mere suspicion and presence near the scene were insufficient for conviction.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties in like amounts.

Uday Manohar Warekar and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4365 OF 2009

¶5

1. Uday Manohar Warekar,

¶6

2. Palraj Ganapati Thewar

¶7

...Applicants

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Senior Inspector of Police,
DCB, CID, Unit No,IX & Ors.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Mr.Rajendra S. Desai for the Applicants.
Mrs.M.R. Tidake, APP for the State.

¶12

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶13

 DATED : NOVEMBER 10, 2009

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

1Heardthe learnedCounsel for the

¶16

applicants and the learned APP for the State.

¶17

2The present applicants were arrested on 3rd

¶18

May, 2009 for the offence punishable under Section

¶19

440 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)

¶20

(c) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against

¶21

¶22

Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 vide C.R.No.
61/2009 registered with Airport Police Station,

¶23

Mumbai and which was transferred to Unit-IX, DCB
CID, Mumbai. Prosecution case in brief is as
under :-

¶24

3The applicants are working as Helpers with
Air Works (I) Engineering Pvt.Ltd. which is engaged

¶25

in maintaining the aircrafts which are kept in the
hangars at Juhu and other places. On the date of the
incident i.e. 23rd April, 2009, one Sudhakar Ranadhir
Surve had stated in his FIR which was lodged before

¶26

the Airport Police Station that at about 9 O�Clock,
one helicopter belonging to Reliance was parked
outside the Air Works hangar on the eastern side at
about 250 feet and the pilot was to take that
aircraft to New Bombay and at about 4.45 p.m., the

¶27

Director of the company one Sahadev Menon called him
and informed him that in the helicopter which was

¶28

parked outside, the two stones and gravel was found
in the cambined gear box after the oil tank was

¶29

¶30

filled. According to him, he made enquiries and he

¶31

learnt that one Bharat Borge and Ramshankar Chavan

¶32

and the present applicants were present near the

¶33

helicopter from 2.30 p.m. for the purpose of filling
fuel and cleaning the helicopter and at about 4.15

¶34

p.m. after the work of cleaning the helicopter was

¶35

over, these applicants went out of the hangar and
Bharat Borge while reexamining helicopter noticed

¶36

that the combined gear box tank cap was fitted in
the opposite direction. He had, therefore, called
one Shehabi Qureshi and brought this fact to his

¶37

notice and when the said Qureshi and Bharat Borge
opened the cap, they found 6-7 stones and some
gravel inside that cap and they, thereafter,

¶38

immediately informed this fact to the management.
Therefore, initially a complaint was filed by the
Sudhakar Surve under the provisions of Section 440

¶39

of the IPC. A statement of Bharat Borge was also
recorded on the same day. Borge has stated that at

¶40

the relevant time, apart from these two applicants,
some persons had come for filling fuel in the said

¶41

¶42

tank of the helicopter and he and one Ramashankar

¶43

Chavan were also present at the same time. In the
first statement, however, he did not mention name of

¶44

the present applicants as the persons suspected to
have committed the offence. The offence thereafter

¶45

was transferred to DCB CID, Crime Branch, Unit-IX

¶46

and again the statement of Bharat Borge was recorded
on 26th April, 2009. In this statement, he mentioned
that there was some strife between the management

¶47

and the workers and on earlier occasion, the present
applicants were suspected to have burst crackers in

¶48

the hangar where the aircraft was kept. He expressed

¶49

his suspicion that the present applicants may also

¶50

be involved in the commission of the said offence.
One Anil Kotiyan�s statement was recorded on 29th

¶51

April, 2009 in which he also stated that present
applicants were near the helicopter at the relevant

¶52

time and prior to fuel being put in the helicopter,
he had cleaned some part of the helicopter and after

¶53

fuel was put, again they had cleaned part of the
helicopter. The said Kotiyan did not express any

¶54

¶55

doubt about the present applicants.

¶56

4Shri Desai, the learned Counsel for the

¶57

applicant invited my attention to the provisions of
the said Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety

¶58

of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 and submitted that in

¶59

view of the provisions of Section 6A, there was a
restriction imposed on the court on granting bail to

¶60

the applicants who are accused in the commission of

¶61

the said offence and unless court was justified
prima facie there was no material to show that the
accused had committed an offence, the court could

¶62

not grant bail to such accused. He, however,
submitted that there was no material on record to

¶63

show that the present applicants were in any manner
involved in the said offence. He submitted that one

¶64

of the witnesses only had expressed his suspicion

¶65

that the present applicants may have committed the
said offence since they were near the aircraft at

¶66

that time. He submitted that unfortunate death of
the witnesses who had given statements who were near

¶67

¶68

the aircraft viz. Shri Bharat Borge and Anil Kotiyan

¶69

who were employed as Technicians prior to, soon

¶70

after the statements were recorded, the dead body of
Borge was found on the track under the mysterious
circumstances and Anil Kotian also died soon
thereafter on 24th August, 2009. He submitted that

¶71

apart from the present applicants and Anil Kotiyan
and several other persons were near the aircraft at
the relevant time. He submitted that however, none

¶72

of the other workers have been arrested. He has

¶73

further submitted that as many as 52 helpers and

¶74

about 250 persons were working in the Air Works (I)

¶75

Engineering Pvt.Ltd. and on the date of the

¶76

incident, apart from the present applicants, Shri
Bharat Borge, Ahmed, Shailendra Parab and Waraprasad
Nekati were checking the helicopter and when the
mischief was noticed at about 2.30 p.m., apart from

¶77

Bharat Borge, Ramashankar Chavan, technician, at
least four persons came to refuel the helicopter.

¶78

There is also no indication as to how many persons
were there apart from three persons who were

¶79

¶80

involved in the refueling of the aircraft. It was,
therefore, submitted that apart from the mere

¶81

suspicion expressed by one of the witnesses, there

¶82

was no material on record. No extra judicial
confession has been recorded. No recovery has been

¶83

made at the instance of the present applicants of

¶84

the place where the said mud and stones were
collected and brought by them. He further submitted

¶85

that on two earlier occasions, FIR was lodged
against the present applicants and they were
arrested and later on, were released on bail whereas

¶86

on two different dates, there was bursting of fire
crackers in the hangars and on both the occasions,

¶87

the police filed a report under Section 169 of the
Cr.P.C. and the present applicants were discharged.

¶88

He invited my attention to the order passed by the

¶89

learned Magistrate on 7th July, 2009 in respect of

¶90

the two applicants filed by the prosecution in

¶91

respect of C.R.No.11/2009 for the offences
punishable under Sections 436 and 511 of the IPC and
CR No.3/2009. He submitted that the names of the

¶92

¶93

applicants, therefore, again taken merely on
suspicion.

¶94

5The learned APP appearing on behalf of the

¶95

State, vehemently, opposed this application for
grant of bail. She submitted that the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation

¶96

Act, 1982 was passed in order to prevent any acts of
sabotage which would put the passengers of aircraft
and the aircraft itself in danger. She submitted
that the applicants were persons who were found near
the helicopter and the time when the said mud and

¶97

gravel was found in the fuel cap. She submitted
that, therefore, in view of the provisions of
Section 6A of the Act, the applicants were not
entitled to be released on bail.

¶98

6In my view, there is much substance in the

¶99

submission made by the learned Counsel for the

¶100

applicant and the submission made by him will have
to be accepted. Before taking into consideration the

¶101

¶102

material on record and facts and circumstances of

¶103

this case, it is necessary to take into

¶104

consideration the provisions of the said Act. The
additional offence under Section 3(1)(c) of the said
Act has been added to the existing offence of
Section 441 of the IPC. The said section reads as

¶105

under:-

¶106

�3.Offence of committing violence on board
an aircraft in flight, etc.- (1) Whoever
unlawfully and intentionally-

¶107

(a) commits an act of violence against a
person on board an aircraft in flight which
is likely to endanger the safety of such
aircraft; or

¶108

(b) destroys aircraft in service or causes
damage to such aircraft in such a manner as
to render it incapable of flight or which
is likely to endanger its safety in flight;
or

¶109

(c) places or causes to be placed on an
aircraft in service, by any means
whatsoever, a device or substance which is
likely to destroy that aircraft, or to
cause damage to it which renders it
incapable of flight, or to cause damage to
it which is likely to endanger its safety
in flight; or

¶110

(d) communicate such information which he

¶111

¶112

knows to be false so as to endanger the
safety of an aircraft in flight,

¶113

shall be punished with imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine.

¶114

(2)Whoever attempts to commit, or abets
the commission of, any offence under sub-
section (1) shall also be deemed to be have
committed such offence and shall be
punished with the punishment provided for
such offence.�

¶115

7Section 6A of the said Act also imposes the

¶116

restriction on the grant of bail on the persons who

¶117

are accused of having committed the said offence.

¶118

Perusal of these two provisions reveals that Section

¶119

6A is identical to the provisions of MCOC Act and

¶120

Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, before

¶121

granting bail to such persons, a duty is cast on the

¶122

court to examine the material on record and only if

¶123

the court comes to the conclusion that the material

¶124

is not sufficient to convict the accused, the court

¶125

can direct the applicant to be released on bail. In

¶126

my view, there is prima facie no material against

¶127

the present applicants and only on the basis of

¶128

¶129

their presence near the aircraft, their names have
been mentioned and suspicion had been expressed by

¶130

one of the witnesses who unfortunately has died

¶131

under mysterious circumstances.

¶132

relevant time, there were several persons near the
aircraft. No recovery has been made at the instance

¶133

of the present applicants. There is nothing on

¶134

record to show the preparation of the commission of
the said offence by the applicants. On two earlier

¶135

occasions, the names of the applicants were taken in
connection with the two incidents which had taken
place where the firecrackers were burst in the

¶136

hangar itself. Later on, however, these applicants
were discharged by filing application under Section
169 of the Cr.P.C. The chain and sequence of events,

¶137

therefore, indicates that apart from mere suspicion,

¶138

there is no other material to indicate that the

¶139

present applicants actually had taken part in the
commission of the said offence. I am informed that

¶140

¶141

the management has terminated the services of other
Helpers. The material, therefore, in my view, is not
sufficient to convict the present applicants. The
applicants, therefore, deserve to be released on
bail. There are no other prior antecedents against
the present applicants. They were working as Helpers
in the said company. Uday Warekar was working for
about 8 years and Palraj Thewar was working for
about 22 years in the said company. The trial is not
likely to begin immediately in the near future. The
applicants are permanently residing in Mumbai. They
have permanent residence in Mumbai. They are married
and having their own family. They are not likely to
abscond. Under these circumstances, the applicants
are entitled to be released on bail. Prima facie,
the material on record is not sufficient to convict
them under provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the said
Act.

¶142

9The applicants, therefore, be released on
bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one or two

¶143

¶144

sureties each in the like amount. They shall report
to DCB CID, Mumbai, twice in a month.

¶145

10The trial court, however, shall not be

¶146

influenced by any observations made by this court
while granting bail to the applicants as these
observations are of a prima facie nature.

¶147

10The application is disposed of.

Uday Manohar Warekar and Anr. v. the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Manohar Warekar and Anr. v. the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchan K. Ratahod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Shakir Hasimali Sayyad Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

Maruti Khandu Ambure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju @ Ashraf Ajgar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Sahaba Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyam Hiralal Sable and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra