Dismissed

Santosh Sukhdev Waykar v. the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2011APPLN/3099/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 437(2) CrPC in a robbery case punishable under Section 395 IPC. The applicant, a seasoned criminal with 29 registered cases and a prior MOCCA detention, was accused of robbery detected through witness statements and incriminating articles discovered at his instance. The single-judge bench dismissed the application due to the severity of the offence and risk

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed. Applicant not enlarged on bail.

Santosh Sukhdev Waykar Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

crap3099.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3099 OF 2011

¶5

Santosh s/o Sukhdev Waykar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through District Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar and anr. ...Respondent

¶6

Shri A.B.Gaikwad, advocate for applicant Shri G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for respondents

¶7

CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.

¶8

DATED : 18th August, 2011

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. I-40 of 2011, registered at Kopargaon police station, District Ahmednagar, for the

¶12

2crap3099.11

¶13

offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation papers were made available by the learned A.P.P. for perusal.

¶14

3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Sachin Mulik on 7.2.2011. It is alleged in the said complaint that while complainant and his friends, namely Manish Vijay Vishwakarma, Sani Lalitkumar Warma, Anchit Ashok Agrawal and Pawan Babulal Ichhariya were proceeding towards ShirdiShani Shinganapur by Hyundai Accent Car, bearing registration No. MP-09/T-0727, belonging to Sunil Subhash Mulik i.e. brother of the complainant and after taking darshan at Shirdi and Shani Shinganapur, when they were returning towards their town via Yeola road through Kopargaon Taluka, at about 9.30 p.m., some assailants on three motor cycles arrived there and assaulted them and took out the articles, currency notes, driving licenses and mobile phones from their persons forcibly and fled away along with the said Hyundai Car and robbed articles.

¶15

3crap3099.11

¶16

4 On the said background, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, it is submitted that there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. It is also submitted that name of the applicant has not been disclosed in the first information report and there is no discovery at the instance of the applicant. It is also canvassed that the alleged discovery of bag containing clothes and Pulsar motor cycle at the instance of the applicant is not the substantive piece of evidence. Hence, it is urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶17

5 Learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that during the course of investigation, statements of eye witnesses, namely Gorakh and Sandip have been recorded and the said statements establish that the applicant herein came by four wheeler Hyundai Car and left by motor cycle after commission of the crime. It is also canvassed by the learned A.P.P. that as many as 29 offences have been registered against the

¶18

¶19

crap3099.11

¶20

applicant and he is a seasoned criminal and habitual offender. Moreover, it is submitted that Pulsar motor cycle and bag containing clothes were discovered at the instance of the applicant under memorandum panchanama, dated 7.2.2011. It is further submitted that the supplementary statement of complainant Sachin Mulik was recorded and he has identified the bag containing clothes, which were discovered at the instance of the applicant herein under memorandum panchanama. It is further submitted that the applicant was detained for the period of two years i.e. from 2007 to 2009 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and there is proposal to apply the provisions of the MOCCA against the applicant, considering his criminal activities. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. urged that present application deserves to be rejected.

¶21

6 Considering the rival submissions and after perusal of the investigation papers, at the out set, the statements of eye witnesses i.e. Sandip Bhuse and Gorakh disclose the name of the applicant herein as one of the assailants and burglar.

¶22

5crap3099.11

¶23

Moreover, the bag containing clothes and Pulsar motor cycle were discovered at the instance of the applicant herein under the memorandum panchanama dated 7.2.2011 and the supplementary statement of the complainant Sachin Mulik discloses that he identified the said bag, as his bag containing clothes, which was kept in the Hyundai Accent Car at the time of afore said robbery, and apparently, said piece of evidence is incriminating against the applicant herein. Moreover, the supplementary statements of friends of the complainant, namely Manish Vishwakarma, Sani Warma and Anchit Agarwal also disclose that they identified their clothes which were discovered at the instance of the applicant herein under the memorandum panchanama and the said piece of evidence also amounts to incriminating evidence against the applicant herein.

¶24

7 Besides that, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that as many as 29 offences have been registered against the applicant herein under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as enlisted herein below.

¶25

¶26

crap3099.11

¶27

Sr. Police	C.R. No.	Offence u/Sec.	Present
No. Station -----------------------------	------------------	(I.P.C.) -------------------------	stage -------------
1 Shrirampur City	15/2000	457,380,511	Pending
2 -”-	58/2000	461, 380	-”-
3 -” -	60/2000	461,380	-”-
4 -” -	68/2000	379	-”-
5 Shrirampur Tq.	63/2000	457,380	-”-
6 -” -	79/2000	457,380	-”-
7 -” -	83/2000	457,380	-”-
8 -”-	91/2000	394,341	-”-
9 Shrirampur City	71/2000	457,380	-”-
10 Kopargaon	141/2002	394,457,342,34	-”-
11 Rahata	73/2002	394,34	-”-
12 Parner	216/2002	379	-”-
13 Vavi, Dist.Nasik	131/2002	399,402,307,353,	427 -”-
14 Shrirampur Tq.	23/2005	399 & 4/25 ArmsA	ct -”-
15 Kopargaon	13/2006	392, 457	-”-
16 Shirdi	60/2006	395, 397	-”-
17 Rahata	86/2006	394, 216 (A), 34	-”-
18 Shrirampur Tq.	127/2007	143,147,148,149,

¶28

	`7`	`crap3` 435 & 135 BPAct	`099.11` -”-
19 -”-	11/2008	392, 34	-”-
20 Sarkarwada Nasik City	46/2008	379	-”-
21 Jawaharnaar Aurangabad City	46/2008	379	-”-
22 Rahata	34/2008	307,34 & 4/25 Arms Act	-”-
23 Jinsi Aurangabad City	65/2008	399, 402 & 4/25 Arms Act	-”-
24 Shrirampur City	314/2010	392	-”-
25 Kopargaon	40/2011	395	-”-
26 -”-	55/2011	394,457,342,34	-”-
27 -”-	4/2011	295, 427, 120 (B)	-”-
28 Loni Kalbhor Dist. Pune	57/2011	379, 34	-”-
29 Panchwati District Nasik	94/2011	379 inves	under tigation

¶29

8 Moreover, it is also pointed out that the applicant was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and

¶30

8crap3099.11

¶31

Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 for the period of two years i.e. 2007 to 2009 and proposal for application of provisions of MOCCA has been moved against the applicant herein, considering criminal activities of the applicant and the said aspects cannot be overlooked.

¶32

9 Moreover, apprehension is posed by the learned A.P.P. that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, considering his earlier checkered criminal history and the said apprehension cannot be overlooked and ignored.

¶33

10 In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed.

¶34

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),

¶35

JUDGE.

¶36

dbm/crap3099.11

Santosh Sukhdev Waykar v. the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Sukhdev Waykar v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Mahesh Manohar Lad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah Thr. Pp

Narayan Motilal Kabre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satpalsingh @ Raja Jeetsingh Pujari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Vimalbai Madhukar Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra

Bapu Pundlik Patil Vs the State of Mah