Allowed

Rohan Shashikant Belambe v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC5 May 2010APPLN/978/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to three students involved in a suicide case, allowing release on ₹15,000 surety upon executing PR bonds. The court confirmed interim bail based on the investigation's failure to substantiate key allegations like SMS messages and the fact-finding committee's exoneration of the applicants regarding ragging.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail on furnishing surety of Rs. 15,000 each and executing PR Bond in like amount, subject to investigation conditions.

Rohan Shashikant Belambe Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 978 OF 2010

¶4

Rohan s/o Shashikant Belambe Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents. Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Smt. Vaishali Shinde, APP for Respondent State WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1079 OF 2010

¶6

Sudarshan Ramchandra Shelake Applicant. Versus. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Mr. G.J. Kore advocate for the applicant. Smt. Vaishali Shinde, APP for State.

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1372 OF 2010

¶9

Sharad s/o Rangnath Bande. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents.

¶10

Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Smt. Vaishali Shinde, APP for Respondent State

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 5TH MAY, 2010.

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

Heard Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal application Nos. 978 of 2010 and 1372 of 2010, and Mr. G. J. Kore, learned counsel for applicant in Cri. application No.1079 of 2010 as well as Mrs. Vaishali Shinde, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State in all the three matters.

¶15

Since afore stated all the three applications arise out of one and the same CR No.29/2010, registered at Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar, said applications are being decided by this common order.

¶16

These are the applications preferred by the respective applicants seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under CR No.29/2010, registered at Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999.

¶17

It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Bandu @ Bandopant Gulab Chitalkar on 28th January, 2010. Said complainant is the father of victim namely Prashant,

¶18

¶19

who was taking education in law College, run by Deccan Education Society, Pune. It is alleged in the said complaint that Prashant was being tortured by the applicants in the aforesaid applications and others continuously and he had disclosed said fact to his parents. It is also alleged in the said complaint that at one time, said Prashant tried to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 2nd January, 2010 when he was along with his parents at their house. It is further alleged that deceased Prashant had disclosed the names of the applicants along with names of other two students to his parents and family friends including lawyers and doctors who had treated him. It is also alleged that although parents of Prashant intended to make complaint to the Principal of college, but Prashant did not allow them to do so, since he was apprehending more trouble at the hands of the applicants and others. It is further alleged that SMSs were sent to Prashant by the applicants when he used tobe away from the college and along with his parents. Said complaint further recites that Prashant was unable to bear the torture at the hands of the applicants and others which ultimately led to committal of suicide by him on 25.01.2010 by jumping into the well.

¶20

On perusal of investigation papers, and after considering the rival contentions advanced by learned respective counsel for the parties, it is significant to note that although deceased Prashant had attempted to commit suicide on 2^nd January, 2010, no complaint was lodged by his parents/family members to the College authorities in that respect against the applicants. It

¶21

¶22

is also important to note that complainant who is father of deceased Prashant is serving in Police Department and therefore, it was expected from the said complainant that he should have put forth the grievance before appropriate forum at appropriate time, but same did not happen. As regards, applicant Sudarshan in Criminal application No.1079 of 2010 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that he was not classmate of deceased Prashant and he was student of third year, although he was studying in same college.

¶23

Apart from that, it appears from the record that a fact finding committee was constituted by the concerned college authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 which recorded the statements of the students, staff, hostel authorities, teachers as well as recorded the statements of roommates of Prashant and on scrutinizing the necessary record, arrived at the conclusion that no ragging took place in the said Law College and in the hostel of the said college and therefore, ultimately gave the finding that the aspect as to who are the students responsible for the said ragging does not survive. In substance, the said Fact Finding Committee made thorough inquiry as well as scrutinized the requisite record and recorded necessary statements and thereafter, apparently, exonerated the applicants herein in respect of the alleged ragging to the deceased Prashant and therefore, the possibility of false implication of the applicants in the present offence cannot be ruled out.

¶24

¶25

Besides that, interim protection was granted to applicant Rohan Shashikant Belambe on 11^th March, 2010 and to applicant Sharad Rangnath Bande on 5^th April, 2010 and to applicant Sudarshan Ramchandra Shelake, on 22^nd March, 2010, and it is submitted by the learned respective counsel for the applicants that since the respective dates of grant of interim protection they were not called by the Investigating Agency for interrogation purpose, and therefore, it appears that there is no necessity of the custodial interrogation of the applicants.

¶26

Moreover as regards the alleged SMSs sent by the applicants to the victim Prashant, it is material to note that although ample of time was given to the respondent to procure the contents of the said SMSs, the investigating agency failed to obtain the contents of the said SMSs, and accordingly the respondent failed to substantiate the said crucial contention.

¶27

Thus, after considering the submissions advanced by learned respective counsel and also considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and further considering the material fact that all the three applicants are students and more particularly considering their future career, I am of the view that all the afore stated three applications for grant of anticipatory bail deserve to be allowed and interim protection granted to the applicants needs to be confirmed, but by imposing certain conditions upon the said Applicants.

¶28

¶29

In the result, Criminal Application No.978 of 2010, 1079 of 2010 and 1372 of 2010 are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant namely Rohan s/o Shashikant Belamb e in Cri. application No.978 of 2010, Sudarshan Ramchandra Shelke in Cri. Appln No.1079 of 2010 and Sharad Rangnath Band e in Cri. Appln No.1372 of 2010 under CR No.29 of 2010, registered at Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar, they be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) each and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount by each of them, on the following conditions.

¶30

(I). The applicants in respective applications shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required on written intimation, till filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶31

(II). The applicants in all applications shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly of indirectly.

¶32

These observations are primafacie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. This order shall be in force till filing of the charge sheet, and one week thereafter.

¶33

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶34

aaa/978.10

Rohan Shashikant Belambe v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Shashikant Belambe v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Walmik Bhivsen Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhikaji Motiram Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Vyankatrao Kalse Vs the State of Mah

Panchakshari Gangadhar Swami and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandesh Yashwant Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.