Allowed

Sachin Maruti Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014ABA/1087/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, who was facing murder charges alleging stabbing of an informant's brother. The court observed the incident was a sudden fight, not premeditated, despite the applicant's criminal antecedents, and imposed strict conditions including arrest reporting and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bonds and sureties, subject to conditions of arrest reporting, non-surrender, and non-interference with witnesses.

Sachin Maruti Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1087 OF 2014

¶4

Sachin Maruti Chougule .. Applicant.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Prabhanjan R. Dave, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶9

DATE : 2^nd September, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶12

bail as the applicant is facing charges under Sections 302, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with the Juna Rajwada Police Station, District:

¶13

Kolhapur, under C.R.No.126 of 2014. One Deepak Dashrath Kamble has reported the

¶14

Page No.1 of 7

¶15

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

¶16

incident of assault which has taken place on 9.6.2014 at around 20.30 hrs at Sudhakar Joshi

¶17

Nagar Slum, Kalamba, Kolhapur. At the instance

¶18

of report, F.I.R. was registered. It is the

¶19

case of the prosecution that the applicant

¶20

accused Sachin Maruti Chougule, is leader of one group and the informant and the deceased Nilesh Kamble were heading the other group.

¶21

There was rivalry between both groups due to

¶22

election and there is competention between both groups to get the superiority in the locality. The deceased Nilesh was the real brother of the informant. On 9.6.2014, when

¶23

the informant Dipak Kamble was pulling a cart

¶24

filled with rubble, there was fight between

¶25

the co-accused and they started beating him,

¶26

he ran away and called his brother Nilesh to help him. Nilesh arrived there. At that time

¶27

the co-accused started assaulting him and the principal accused Sachin Gaikwad took out a knife and stabbed in the stomach of Nilesh

¶28

Page No.2 of 7

¶29

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

¶30

which took intense time out of the same.

¶31

Nilesh was taken to the hospital, but succumbed to the injury.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has submitted that the applicant has

¶33

not committed any murder and has no connection with this crime.

¶34

The learned APP opposed this

¶35

application. She submitted that the applicant accused is having antecedents. He has criminal record and he was leading a group of the co-

¶36

accused and committed the murder of Nilesh.

¶37

She relied on the supplementary statement of first informant and other persons, who have

¶38

stated that the applicant accused has

¶39

expressed that Nilesh was becoming powerful and therefore, he should be finished. The investigating Officer is not present. He had

¶40

sent a note that from 29.8.2014 he is busy due

¶41

to Ganesh Festival and therefore, matter be adjourned. However, he has sent all the papers

Page No.3 of 7

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

alongwith Constable.

Though IO is not present, all papers

¶46

of investigation including statements of witnesses are produced before the Court. After going through the statement of

¶47

witnesses, so also supplementary statements of

¶48

these witnesses, it is found that the name of this applicant accused was not taken in the

¶49

first remand application, but the name appeared 10 days after the incident. The incident has taken place on 9.6.2014 and the

¶50

name of the applicant surfaced in the investigation on 19.6.2014. On perusal of the statements of witnesses and the F.I.R. it is found that Deepak Kamble who was the person on

¶51

the attack. However, it appears that there

¶52

was sudden fight between Deepak Kamble and other co-accused due to push given to Deepak

¶53

Kamble, the co-accused assaulted him. He went

¶54

and called his brother i.e. deceased Nilesh.

¶55

All four accused started beating him and the

¶56

Page No.4 of 7

¶57

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

¶58

principal accused Sachin Gaikwad suddenly took

¶59

knife and stabbed Nilesh in his stomach.

¶60

Considering the scenario, it appears prima facie that the incident was not premeditated

¶61

attack, but has taken place suddenly. It is true that the applicant accused is having criminal record and he may be a leader of the

¶62

group of co-accused. However, in the case of

¶63

murder it is necessary to see whether the applicant has really played any role or not. A

¶64

person may be hard core criminal and he may be facing charges of murder of some other person.

¶65

However, he cannot be roped in the case of some other person, when prima facie it appears

¶66

that the offence is committed out of sudden

¶67

fight. Therefore, I am of the view that it is

¶68

case under Section 302 where there is no such

¶69

connected evidence available, I am inclined to

¶70

grant pre-arrest bail. It is to be noted that

¶71

there are statements that the applicant

¶72

accused has enquired why his name has been

¶73

Page No.5 of 7

¶74

04 ABA 1087OF 2014

¶75

taken by the witnesses and therefore, he may threaten them and therefore, following conditions are imposed on him.

¶76

Order

¶77

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest in above crime, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/--with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/-.

¶78

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Friday and Monday between 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶79

iii) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not threaten and pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶80

iv) The applicant shall not, directly

¶81

or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any

¶82

Page No.6 of 7

¶83

04 ABA 1087OF 2014 police officer; v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. 5. The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶84

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶85

Page No.7 of 7

Sachin Maruti Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Maruti Chougule 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Baba Jawale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Revan Sudam Kanhere and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrimant Akaram Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balu Rama Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Biru Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Pandurang Bhatale Vs the State of Mahrarashtra