Allowed

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014ABA/1164/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant prosecuting under Section 379 IPC for alleged sand theft. The court observed prima facie validity in the applicant's defense of false implication arising from a sand excavation dispute and noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's case regarding the seizure of boats and vehicle details.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties, subject to conditions.

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.1164.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1164 OF 2014

¶4

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

Mr.V.V. Purwant for the Applicant Mr.A.R. Patil, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.P.B. Raskar, API, Mandrup police station, Solapur – present

¶6

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

This is an application for anticipatory bail as the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is facing allegations of theft of 500 brass sand from the bank of river Bhima near Telgav, Solapur in relation to C.R. No.91 of 2014 at Mandrup police station, Solapur. The incident of excavation has taken place from 19.7.2014 at 6am till 28.7.2014. The information was given on 28.7.2014 at 1530 hours.

¶10

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the complainant is an authorised contractor, who had given the permission to excavate sand from the bank of river Bhima. However, he is excavating sand of more than permissible limit and due to the excavation, the villagers have been suffering from various difficulties including vehicular traffic, pollution, noise, etc. Therefore, the applicant/accused and the

¶11

1 / 4

¶12

aba.1164.2014.doc

¶13

other villagers had sent complaints to the Tehsildar, Additional Collector, Collector and so also the Revenue Minister, State of Maharashtra since June, 2014. It is also contended that in all these applications, the present applicant/accused is the one who signed first and therefore he is falsely implicated in this offence. He has further submitted that these applications of the villagers are produced on record. He has pointed out that the applicant/accused is in fact fighting against the informant and he has not committed any offence, especially theft of 500 brass sand thereby causing loss of Rs.90,30,000/- to the State. He has submitted that out of vengeance, the Tehsildar and the informant have implicated the applicant/accused.

¶14

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application and has submitted that the police have recorded statements of the witnesses, who supported that the applicant was present at the time of excavation and he has threatened the workers of the complainant and they have seen him excavating the sand. He further submitted that two electric boats which were used for excavation of sand were also seized by the police. Therefore the custody of the applicant/accused is required.

¶15

Perused documents. It shows that the applicant/accused and the villagers have filed applications against the informant in respect of excavation.

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

aba.1164.2014.doc

¶18

On perusal of the panchanama dated 21.7.2014, it is found that two electric boats valued at Rs.180,000/- which were used for the excavation by the applicant/accused were seized. The applicant/accused and the villagers have filed applications against sand excavation. The FIR discloses the numbers of two trucks MH14 AS 8999 and MH12 816. However, the prosecution could not give details whether the truck drivers of those trucks were arrested or whether they were the witnesses or not. Similarly, it is mentioned that one Saddam Shaikh, who was a driver of a trailer took away the two electric boats valued at Rs.180,000/-. As per the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant, Saddam Shaikh is the employee of the complainant and as the applicant/accused has initiated movement against the sand excavation, the complainant became hostile. No statement of Saddam Shaikh is recorded by the police. The prosecution is not in a position to answer as to who is the owner of electric boats, which were seized by the police. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that he is not an owner of the boats. Moreover, as claimed by the prosecution, there was a theft of 500 brass sand. The Court takes a judicial note that in one truck, normally 4 brass sand can be transported at a time. Thus, if it is considered that two trucks were used for the theft of sand, then, this theft is not possible with the help of two trucks in two or three days and if that theft was going on, why it was not reported to the police immediately. These questions raised by the

¶19

3 / 4

¶20

aba.1164.2014.doc

¶21

learned Counsel for the applicant/accused are found prima facie valid. In view of this, false implication of the applicant/accused due to fight over sand excavation between the two parties is possible. I, therefore, grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused as under:

¶22

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence; iii) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station every Monday between 6pm to 7pm and cooperate with the investigating officer.

¶24

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

4 / 4

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale 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

Dilip Sitaram Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Dinkar Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Anil Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

Yogesh Sadashiv Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Shantilal Sancheti Vs the State of Maharashtrac