Criminal Bail Application where the High Court rejected the application due to threats made by accused no.1 against the first informant, ordering the trial to be expedited.
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
SNS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2011
Hanmant @ Sunny Balvant Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
...Applicant.
...Respondents.
Mr. Pankaj Deokar ,adv. For the Applicant. Smt.G.P.Mulekar, APP For the Respondent/State.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 3, 2011.
P.C.
1 Applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.58 of
2010 registered at Koregaon Police Station District Satara under sections 143, 147, 302 r/w section 149 of the I.P.C.
2 Prosecution case, in brief, is that accused no.1 Prashant Bhosale wanted to recover an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased Tukaram Chavan on the allegation that said Tukaram had stolen away his electric motor. As the payment was not made nor the motor was returned, on 30.5.2010 at about 3 p.m., accused no.1 Prashant, his brother Santosh Bhosale, Rama Sayaji Shirtode and the applicant Hanmant @ Sunny and one more person from the village Baman had beaten said Tukaram and they put him on bamboos and took to the bank of the canal and then threw him near the boundary of the land of one Dnyandev and the edge
2
of the canal. Thereafter these persons left the spot . Some witnesses had seen the accused persons taking away Tukaram in injured condition. His brother Sharad, who lodged FIR and sister-in-law Santoshi had also seen accused persons taking Tukaram on the bamboos and throwing near the canal. After the accused persons left the spot, Sharad and Santoshi went near Tukaram but he was not in a position to speak and he breathed last within a few minutes. Shortly after that accused no.1 Prashant threatened Sharad against giving any report about the incident. However, he lodged report against four named and one unnamed person from the village Baman. The present applicant is one of those four named persons.
3 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that in view of the P.M.Report, injuries were on the legs and right side leg bones were fractured. As per the P.M. Report, death had occurred due to hemorrhagic shock due to fracture of right tibia and fibula. The learned counsel contends that there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body and, therefore, there was no intention to cause death. On the other hand the learned APP contends that accused persons had taken injured Tukaram on the bamboos to throw him in the canal but because they were seen by others, they threw him only on the bank of the canal and not into the canal. According to her, this indicated intention to cause death. In my
3
opinion, it will not be appropriate to make any comment on this aspect at this stage. However, the fact remains that immediately after the incident , accused no.1 Prakash had given threats to the first informant Sharad and if bail is granted to the accused, safety of the witnesses may be in danger. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail.
4 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected.
However, the learned Sessions Judge, Satara shall expedite the trial of the case and dispose off the same as early as possible and preferably by the end of May, 2011.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted when the accused has threatened the first informant who lodged the FIR.
Hanmant @ Sunny Balvant Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
