Allowed

Vaijanath Devappa Longaonkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2011APPLN/65/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court cancelled bail granted to two accused accused of attempted murder and offenses under the Arms Act. The court held that the bail order lacked proper reasoning regarding the serious nature of the injuries caused to the victim and authorized interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail of respondents No. 2 and 3 cancelled; accused ordered to surrender to investigating officer by 5th April 2011.

Vaijanath Devappa Longaonkar Vs the State of Mah… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2011

¶5

Vaijanath s/o Devappa Longaonkar,
Age 58 years, occu: Agril.,
R/o. Sambhajinagar, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.

¶6

..APPLICANT.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jalna, Dist. Jalna.

¶9

2. Ghansham s/o Laxmanrao Pawar, Age 42 years, Occu: Agril., r/o Sadar Bazar, Jalna, Hamalpura, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶10

3. Raju @ Sunil s/o Raghunath Jadhav, Age 21 years, Occu: Labour, r/o Jalna, Hamalpura, Tq. & Dist. Jalna,

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.S.J.Salunke, Adv., for the applicant.
Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State.
Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Adv., for R. nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶16

 DATE: 25/3/2011

¶17

***

CR.APL NO.65/2011

PER COURT :

1.Heard. The brother of the victim
injured Vaijanath (complainant) has urged to
cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions
Judge-I, Jalna, in C.M.P. Bail No.932/2010, dt.
22.12.2010, granted in favour of respondent nos.
2 and 3 for the offense punishable under Sections
307 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the
Arms Act.

¶22

2.Elaborate submissions are advanced by
Mr. S.J.Salunke, learned Counsel for the
complainant, pointing to the role, mental set up
of respondent no.2 Ghansham in dealing with
either the brother of the complainant or with the
Government officials. It is alleged, in the year
2008, Inspector of Land Records, Taluka Jalna,
was threatened by respondent no.2 to face dire
consequence and even to seek redressal before the
authorities dealing with Anti Corruption cases.
Said Inspector, ultimately, approached the
Superintendent of Police, Jalna, by putting his
grievance against respondent no.2 on 21.11.2008.

¶23

3.It is informed that a FIR vide Crime
No.I-225/2006 dt.19.9.2006 was filed by the
victim Sadanand against respondent no.2 for the
offense under Section 420 read with Section 34 of
IPC. Inspite of such prosecution, in vogue, in

¶24

3 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶25

the application moved before learned Sessions
Judge at Jalna, a sweeping statement is made in
paragraph no.8, which reads as under:

¶26

"That the applicants are having clear
antecedents and are prepared to offer
bail to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble
Court."

¶27

4.The learned Sessions Judge, while
granting bail in terms of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.,
was also informed that the injured is discharged
from the hospital. It appears, he was not made
aware, as is evident from the order, the gravity,
and the volume of injuries suffered by the victim
Sadanand. The medical certificate of Deepak
Hospital issued on 13.12.2010 illustrate
following injuries:

¶28

"(1)Incised wound of about 20 x 0.5
cms, bone deep on nape of neck,
extending horizontally, with active
bleeding.

¶29

(2)Incised wound of about 7 x 0.5
cms, bone deep with underlying, outer
table skull fracture over left parietal
region.

¶30

(3)Incised wound of about 4 x 0.5
cms, bone deep with underlying fracture
of supraorbital ridge over left eyebrow.

¶31

(4)Incised wound of 10 x 0.5 cms,
subcutaneous deep over right shoulder.

¶32

4 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶33

(5)Incised wound of about 7 x 0.5 cms,
muscle deep over right hand over first
web space dorsally.

¶34

(6)Incised wound of about 3 x 0.5 cms
muscle deep over base of right index
finger palmer aspect.

¶35

(7)Incised wound over left middle and
ring finger palmer aspect, approx.5 x
0.5 cms bone deep, flexor tendens cut.

¶36

5.Incidentally, reference to the assault
and the manner of protest by victim, resulting in
suffering injury to his hand corresponds from the
FIR.

¶37

6.The gravity of the injuries, prima
facie, is illustrative of the fact that the
assailant,forthepresent,the

¶38

accused/respondents, had intention to eliminate
the victim Sadanand, however, because of timely
alertness and his yelling, calling assistance, he
has been saved. The first injury is incised
wound; 20 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on nape of neck,
extending horizontally with active bleeding.
Had it touched trachea, the death on the spot was
certain.

¶39

7.The learned Sessions Judge, as could be
seen, was more influenced about the apprehension
nursed by the prosecution of the respondents
tampering the witnesses and or creating obstacle
in the investigation and, for that purpose, he

¶40

5 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶41

thought it better to impose certain conditions,
and to ensure release of the accused/respondents
on bail. His reference that there are no
extraordinarycircumstancestokeepthe

¶42

applicants behind the bars is, indeed,
obliterating the record as, to the knowledge of
the respondent, he had already faced a
prosecution at the behest of the injured
Sadanand.

¶43

8.Learned Counsel for the complainant
submits, that the terror of the respondent is
writ large as he has subsequently entered in the
precincts of the Jalna for which an application
was moved on 2nd Feb.,2011 and Police have
initiated action against respondent no.2.
Learned Counsel has also referred to the incident
dt.15/16th March, 2011. These two events
certainly are beyond period of making application
moved on 7th Jan.,2011, they are only referred,
however, no comments are passed concerning these
activities of the respondents.

¶44

9.The law on the point of grant of bail is
illustrated by the Apex Court in the matter of
Dinesh M.N.(S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat ( 2008
STPL(LE) 40059 SC : AIR 2008 SC 1731). The
Hon'ble Lordships have observed, giving reference
to the judgment in the matter of Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.

¶45

6 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶46

( 2004 (7) SCC 528), as referred in paragraph no.
11 of said judgment of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, as
under:

¶47

"10.Though the High Court appears
to have used the expression `ban' on the
grant of bail in serious offenses,
actually it is referable to the decision
of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.
( 2004 (7) SCC 528). In para 11 it was
noted as follows:

¶48

"11.The law in regard to grant
or refusal of bail is very well
settled. The Court granting bail
should exercise its discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter
of course. Though at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination
ofevidenceandelaborate
documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there
is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding
why bail was being granted
particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a
serious offense. Any order devoid
of such reasons would suffer from
non-application of mind. It is also
necessary for the court granting
bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:

¶49

(a)The nature of accusation
and the severity of punishment
in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence.

¶50

(b)Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or
apprehnsion of threat to the

¶51

CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶52

¶53

complainant.

¶54

(c)Prima facie satisfaction of
the court in support of the
charge ( See Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
( 2002(3) SC 598 and Puran v.
Rambilas ( 2001(6)SCC 338)."

¶55

The Apex Court also indicated that the conditions
laid down under Section 437(1)(i) are sine qua
non for granting bail even under Section 439 of
the Code. The Apex Court has observed,

¶56

"Even though re-appreciation of the
evidence as done by the Court granting
bail is to be avoided, the Court dealing
with an application for cancellation of
bail under Section 439(2) can consider
whether irrelevant materials were taken
into consideration. That is so because
it is not known as to what extent the
irrelevant materials weighed with the
Court for accepting the prayer for
bail."

¶57

10.Before the learned Sessions Judge, the
irrelevant consideration was discharge of the
victim, which had, indeed, nothing to do with the
custody of the accused/respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The care that the learned Judge appears to have
taken of avoiding apprehension, by desisting the
respondents to remain in the city of Jalna, has
been diluted, fractured and obliterated by
entering in the city and again causing threat
perception to the complainant and or the victim.

¶58

8 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶59

11.The other limb of the submission that
the bail was granted on 22nd Dec.,2010, and
sufficient time has elapsed also deserve
consideration, however, the application is
promptly moved on 7th Jan.,2011. The duration
of enjoyment of liberty is immaterial. It is
said, confidence of the common man in the
judiciary cannot be sacrificed so lightly.

¶60

12.In the matter of Dhuk Singh V. State of
Rajasthan and another ((2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1382)
the Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court have held
the parameters to be kept in view while dealing
with an application for bail, namely,

¶61

"(i) the nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witness or
apprehensionofthreattothe
complainant, and (iii) prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge."

¶62

13.In this case, there are three eye
witnesses, apart from the victim Sadanand, who
have seen respondent no.2 and his accomplice,
respondent no.3. The theory advanced, who has
caused the attack is uncertain; a miserable
aspect and again a least chance, since the
authorship, primarily, would be landing to the

¶63

9 CR.APL NO.65/2011

¶64

shoulders of the respondents, need not be gone
into at this stage.

¶65

14.Taking survey of above facts, the
release by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, on
22nd Dec.,2010, calls for interference. The
bail granted to the respondents (accused) is
cancelled and terminated.

¶66

Both the accused to surrender to the

¶67

investigator on 5th April, 2011.

¶68

Needless to add, since chargesheet is
filed, if an application for release on bail is
made, the learned Sessions Judge shall deal with
the same on its own merits.

¶69

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶70

agp/65-01crapl

Vaijanath Devappa Longaonkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijanath Devappa Longaonkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Shyamrao Kalyani and Anr. Vs the State of Mah, Thr. Nanded Rural P.S.

Ajay Vishnu Mahajan Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Subhash Ramrao Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayyaed Muddassar Nazar Kazim Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Firoz Khan Afsar Pathan Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Shaikh Tanvir Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra