Allowed

Sunil Sadashiv Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Aug 2014ABA/997/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of causing drowning deaths and theft of minerals. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary, directing bail on deposit and periodic reporting terms, while noting the need for Revenue Department compliance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on terms of deposit, bail bond with sureties, and periodic reporting to police station.

Sunil Sadashiv Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.997.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.997 OF 2014

¶5

Sunil Sadashiv Choudhari

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶9

Mr.Ganesh Gole i/b Ms.Rashmi Gagwani for the Applicant Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.Anil Chormale, P.I., Jath police station, Sangli – present

¶10

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATE: AUGUST 13, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences under section 304A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 165 of 2014 registered with the Jath police station, Sangli. One Arun Eknath Khanse, Circle Officer of Muchandi village, Taluka Jath, District Sangli had given the information to the police that on 9.7.2014 between 2 pm to 4p at village Salekiri, Tal.:Jath, on gat No.25, 3 minor girls viz., Nikita Patil, aged 14 years, Pooja aged 11 years and Aishwarya aged 8 years had gone for sheep grazing and playing. At that time, they got drowned in the water accumulated in the pit on the plot and died. He had informed that the said pit was created because of excavation by the applicant/accused of the

¶14

1 / 6

¶15

aba.997.2014.doc

¶16

brass boulders and the minerals from the said land which were owned by one Sawant family. The applicant/accused obtained permission of the Tehsildar, village Salikeri for excavation of the boulders plus minerals from gat No.25 for a period from 27.1.2014 to 31.1.2014 of 500 brass. However, he had entered into an agreement with the government authority and the agriculturist Sawant that he would after completion of the excavation on 31.1.2014, who was bound to make levelling of the said land. However, he had not done anything and left the pit as it is and the soil without levelling which led to accumulation of the water in the big pit which was 12' deep and the girls drowned in the said pit. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the applicant/accused as it was found that the the applicant/accused had excavated more than permissible 500 brass boulder and rubble valued at Rs.3 lakhs.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that section 304A is bailable and section 379 is non-bailable. He had excavated the land from gat No.25 under permission and also under regular agreement with the owner of the land and the government authority. The permission was granted from 27.1.2014 to 31.1.2014. After 31.1.2014 as the permission to excavate the said land was over, there was no question of his digging the said land after 31.1.2014. He submitted that no complaint of theft was lodged against the applicant/accused immediately after

¶18

2 / 6

¶19

aba.997.2014.doc

¶20

31.1.2014 or thereafter but only after the death of the girls, the offence of theft is registered against him. He submitted that there is a gap of more than 5 months from the date he stopped the work and the date on which the offence of theft was noticed.

¶21

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She submitted that the applicant/accused has committed theft of minerals and rubble by taking out more than the permissible rubble. Due to his act, there was a pit like well of 10' to 12' depth. She further submitted that it was his duty to do the levelling of the soil as per the agreement entered into by the applicant/accused with the Sawant family, the land owner and the government authority. She further submitted that as per condition 19 of the permission dated 25.1.2014, the permission holder was required to take all precautions of safety. She relied on the statement of Sawant, the agriculturist. She submitted that after 31.1.2014, nobody has excavated the said land and thus, he has committed a theft of the rubble of the boulder and minerals.

¶22

It is the most unfortunate incident. The three minor girls have lost their lives. Ex-facie, it appears that the applicant/accused was responsible for the same. The applicant should have done the levelling of the soil, however, it was not done after 31.1.2014. There was a pit of nearly 10' to

¶23

3 / 6

¶24

aba.997.2014.doc

¶25

12' depth and as water accumulated, children died. The conditions in the agreement and also in the permission are violated. However, this is an office under section 304A which is bailable. The applicant/accused here is before the Court for anticipatory bail for non-bailable offence i.e., of theft under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He is facing the charge of excavating cases mineral/rubble than the permitted one. As per the case of the prosecution, he is allowed 500 brass minerals. However, he excavated 2000 brass i.e, 1500 more brass than the permitted. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has pointed out that under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code even though he had excavated more than permissible limit, then he would be charged to pay compensation of an amount of 3 times more than what was the value of permissible material. It was the duty of the officers working in the said government department to go and inspect the spot where the excavation has taken place immediately after the expiry date of the permission and if levelling is not done, then to give notice to the person concerned.

¶26

Under such circumstances, It is necessary for the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department to issue necessary directions in respect of strict compliance of the conditions which are imposed at the time of the permission. This is in the interest of safety of the public at large and is required to be scrupulously followed, otherwise everybody's responsibility is nobody's duty.

¶27

4 / 6

¶28

aba.997.2014.doc

¶29

However, in the fact situation of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is not required and hence, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail on the following terms:

¶30

i) The statement of the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant/accused is ready to deposit, without prejudice, an amount of Rs.3 lacs before the Court of JMFC, Jath, District Sangli, by 26^th August, 2014 is accepted. Upon deposit of such amount, the learned JMFC, Jath, shall issue necessary orders in respect of the amount;

¶31

ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶32

iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶33

iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station on 3 Saturdays i.e., 16^th August, 2014, 23^rd August, 2014 and 13^th September between 4 to 6pm.

¶34

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

5 / 6

¶36

aba.997.2014.doc

¶37

Copy of this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra for necessary action in compliance.

¶38

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶39

6 / 6

Sunil Sadashiv Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sadashiv Choudhari 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 Gajanan Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubha Govind Mundale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Muddassar Yusuf Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Revansidha Giranivadal (Jadhav) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinayak Krishnat Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Murlidhar Vitthal More Vs the State of Maharashtra