In an anticipatory bail-related appeal regarding apprehension of arrest in a self-immolation case, the High Court declined discretionary relief as prima facie evidence implicated the applicants.
Discretionary relief (anticipatory bail or preventive fiat) is declined; the application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) CRI.APP. 3520.2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3520 OF 2010
1. Balu S/o Radhuji Ingale
2. Shivnath S/o Chandrabhan Ingale
3. Kishor S/o Karbhari Ingale .. Applicants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents
Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State
...
CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010
ORAL ORDER:-
1.Heard learned counsel. The applicants
apprehend their arrest in connection with crime
no. I-159 of 2010 registered at Sangamner Police
Station for the offence under section 306, 323, 504
and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The FIR is lodged by mother of deceased
Arjun. He was aged about 25 years. He was allegedly
working as driver on tractor of the applicants. He
had left that job and was working at Chakan in a
(2) CRI.APP. 3520.2010
private company since about six months before the
incident. The FIR purports to show that deceased
Arjun was always scared because the applicants used
to employ him for driving of the tractor vehicle
during night time for illegal excavating and
transporting sand from bed of the river situated in
the outskirts of the village. It was noticed that as
and when he used to bunk the duty, the applicants
used to threaten and beat him and, therefore, he had
left the job with them. He had returned to village
due to a marriage function on 20.4.2010. On
28.5.2010 the informant and her husband were sleeping
in the open space in front of the house. At about
11.30 pm. they heard cry and went to see as to what
had happened. It was noticed that Arjun had
immolated himself. He had received 98% burn. He
died on 1.6.2010 at wee hours. On enquiry he
narrated to the mother that when he had returned from
Pune (Chakan) the applicants had taken him to the
river bed of river Pravara and had beaten up him. He
alleged that they had threatened him that if he will
not work with them then he would be done to death so
(3) CRI.APP. 3520.2010
due to such ill-treatment and threats, he committed
the act of self-immolation.
3.Counsel would submit that there is delay in
lodging of the FIR and that when the deceased had
already left the work prior to about six months, it
is improbable that the applicants would force him to
do work with them. It is pointed out that no offence
was registered against the applicants for alleged
excavation of the sand nor anybody had complained
against them of such business. It is contended that
the applicants are likely to be humiliated on account
of the arrest when they are unconcerned with the
alleged act of self-immolation by the deceased Arjun.
4.There may be another side of the coin. The
deceased was the only person knowing about the
alleged murky business of the applicants. The FIR
does show, prima faice, that they used to transport
the excavated sand through night time and deceased
Arjun was being threatened or sometimes even beaten
up. It is difficult to fathom human mind. It may be
that deceased Arjun was rather susceptible to mental
(4) CRI.APP. 3520.2010
pressures and was of weak mind. Not everyone in the
society is expected to be possessed with quality of
lion's heart nor bravery is expected from each unit
of the society. There are gullible persons who can
be put under pressure. Deceased Arjun may be one of
them. In any case, it prima facie appears that the
informant, who is mother of deceased Arjun, has no
tangible reason to lodge such a report against the
applicants nor there was any serious enmity between
them. In her FIR she has referred to the oral dying
declaration of the deceased Arjun which prima facie
implicates the applicants. Under the circumstances
the discretionary relief is declined to them and
therefore the Application is rejected.
5. The observations may not be considered in any
other proceeding, including the decision of regular
Bail Application.
arp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the preventive fiat should be granted to applicants apprehending arrest in self-immolation case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balu S/o Radhuji Ingale and ors.
The State of Maharashtra
V.R. Kingaonkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court