Allowed

Yogesh Waman Thakare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jun 2013BA/626/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for bail in C.R.No.I-147 of 2011. The applicant was a lookout accused in aized attack. Granting bail on the basis that material against him differed from that against the main accused and that others similarly placed had been released.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount, reporting to the Crime Branch office.

Yogesh Waman Thakare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/4 (6)BA-626-13

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.626 of 2013

¶5

Yogesh Waman Thakare ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for the State.

¶8

Mr.Subhash Jha, Advocate for the First Informant.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED : JUNE 19, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Heard Mr.A.P. Mundargi, learned Sr. Advocate for the applicant. Heard Mrs.R.V. Newton, learned APP for the State. I have also heard Mr.Subhash Jha, learned counsel who was permitted to intervene in the matter on behalf of the First Informant, and make submissions to oppose the grant of bail.

¶13

2 The applicant is one of the accused in C.R.No.I-147 of 2011, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ambernath. The said C.R. is in respect of offences punishable under sections 302

¶14

2/4 (6)BA-626-13

¶15

IPC, 307 IPC, 326 IPC, 143 IPC, 147 IPC read with section 149 IPC, 120B IPC, 201 IPC, and also offences punishable under the Arms Act and Bombay Police Act.

¶16

3 The facts alleged by the prosecution are, in brief, as follows:-

¶17

That the First Informant Arvind Walekar, who is a Shiva Sena Shahar Pramukh for Ambernath, while he was sitting in his shakha office, along with his bodyguards and some others, was attacked by a person unknown to him who had entered in the shakha with a revolver. There were four to five other persons who were standing outside the shakha , and were firing. The bodyguards of the First Informant, Rakesh Yaav and Shyamsunder Yadav subsequently succumbed to the injuries. One of the assailants also died due to the firing done by the bodyguards of the First Informant.

¶18

4 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have glanced through the relevant parts of the charge-sheet.

¶19

5 It is an admitted position that the applicant is not the actual assailant. It is nobody’s case that he had any weapon with him, or that he had fired at anyone during the incident.

¶20

6 The role attributed to the applicant is that he had kept a watch on the movements of the First Informant, and had given information regarding that, on mobile telephone to the actual

¶21

(6)BA-626-13

¶22

assailants. It is alleged that he was present near the scene of the offence, and was passing on such information.

¶23

7 The material against the applicant is not different from the material that was available against three other accused who have been granted bail – Arun Waringe (BA 996/12 decided on 5/9/2012), Vilas Waringe (BA 1592/12 decided on 22/11/2012) and Jagdish Desai (BA 1839/12 decided on 5/2/2013.

¶24

8 The statements of witnesses who speak about the presence of the applicant near the scene of assault, at the material time, were recorded after the arrest of the applicant.

¶25

9 Though a weapon i.e. a revolver is said to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant, in the course of investigation, admittedly, that revolver was not used in the commission of the offence.

¶26

10 The applicant is also said to be in telephonic contact with the actual assailants, but the telephone number which is shown to be in contact with the telephone numbers alleged to be belonging to the actual assailant, is not in the name of the applicant. That it was given to the applicant by the co-accused in whose name it is held, is not supported by any material.

¶27

11 Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason to take a different view of the matter and deny bail to the applicant when others similarly placed, have been granted bail.

¶28

4/4 (6)BA-626-13

¶29

12 Application is allowed.

¶30

13 Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount, on the condition to attend the office of the Crime Branch, Ulhasnagar, on the first and third Monday of every calendar month, till the disposal of the case against him.

¶31

14 At this stage, Mr.Jha prays for staying the operation of this order. Prayer is rejected.

¶32

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Yogesh Waman Thakare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Waman Thakare v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Arun Shankar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Sahdev Raul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babusha B. Lande Vs Union of India and Anr.

Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs the Sr Inspector of Police Economic Offence Wing and Ors.

Suman Shankar Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vivek Vishnu Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.