Allowed

Parag Ramdas Mayane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jun 2014BA/252/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two bail applications in a murder case. The co-accused Parag Mayane was granted bail due to lack of material beyond solitary witness identification and no dispute with the deceased. Shailesh Pawar was also granted bail considering the case was primarily based on suspicion and late-stage arrest.

What did the court decide?

Parag Mayane released on bail Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount; Shailesh Pawar released on bail Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

Parag Ramdas Mayane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

tilak 1/4 (901)BA-252-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.252 of 2014

¶5

Parag Ramdas Mayane .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.642 of 2014
Shailesh Chaban Pawar .. Applicant Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the Respondent State.

¶9

--- CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 13^th JUNE, 2014. ---

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the applicant in both the applications are the accused in one and the same case i.e. Sessions Case arising out of C.R.No.169/12 registered at Rajgad Police Station. The case is in respect of offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 of the IPC, 302 of the IPC read with section 149 of the IPC.

¶12

2 Vinayak, son of First Informant – Jivraj Kadam – was attacked by some persons, and was murdered on 7^th November 2012.

¶13

tilak 2/4 (901)BA-252-14

¶14

Vinayak was doing the work of an Estate Broker. In the First Information Report, Vinayak's father suspected certain persons, and more particularly, one Balaji Kadam and one Amol Shivilkar, as some dispute had taken place between these two persons on one hand, and Vinayak on the other hand over the payment of commission of brokerage in respect of a certain dealing of land. The First Informant is not a witness to the alleged assault, and it is apparent on reading of the First Information Report that it is after learning about the death of his son, on suspicion, he has named some persons as the accused. Though this is put forth as a fact, it is clear that it is an inference drawn by the First Informant.

¶15

3 As far as the applicant Parag (Bail Application No.252-14) is concerned, he is alleged to be the actual assailant. The other applicant Shailesh Pawar (Bail Application No.642-14) is not alleged to be the actual assailant. The case against him seems to be that he, along with others, had conspired to commit murder of Vinayak, and had engaged the others to assault and kill him.

¶16

4 So far as applicant Parag is concerned, he was not suspected by the First Informant. The material against him consists in his identification as one of the assailants by a solitary witness – Rahul Chandrakant Pawar. The statement of this person was recorded on 9^th November 2012. In the Test Identification Parade that was held on 10^th January 2013, he appears to have identified the applicant Parag as one of the assailants.

¶17

5 The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the identifying witness – Rahul Chandrakant Pawar – had not seen the

¶18

tilak 3/4 (901)BA-252-14

¶19

actual asault at all, and therefore, his identifying the applicant Parag as the actual assailant, is open to doubt. I am not impressed by this contention, inasmuch as, though Rahul Pawar is not said to have witnessed the actual assault in the sense that he did not notice which person did what, he had seen the assailants while they were chasing the victim, and while they returned and came out of the house in which the assault took place.

¶20

6 The fact, however, remains that except such identification, there is no other material against the applicant Parag. Admittedly, no stains of blood were found on his clothes, and no weapon was recovered from, or at his instance.

¶21

7 The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that coaccused similarly placed, have been released on bail. He submitted that co-accused Balaji Kadam, Abhimanyu Khutwal and Vikas Liman, who were also identified by the same witness, have been released on bail. Applicant Parag is in custody since November 2012, and the trial has not yet commenced.

¶22

8 Considering that except the identification by a solitary witness, there is no other material against applicant Parag, as also the fact that the First Informant did not suspect him – obviously because applicant Parag himself had no dispute with the deceased Vinayak – I think it fit to grant him an opportunity of availing of liberty.

¶23

9 So far as the applicant Shailesh Pawar is concerned, the case against him is based primarily on the suspicion felt by the First Informant, which arose because of the dispute between Balaji Kadam

¶24

tilak 4/4 (901)BA-252-14

¶25

and Amol Shivilkar on the one hand, and Vinayak on the other hand. Shailesh is said to be a friend of Balaji Kadam and Amol Shivilkar, and had allegedly threatened Vinayak on their behalf, previously. The case against him is primarily based on the supposed statements made by the co-accused. As aforesaid, it is not the case of the prosecution that he was present on the scene of the offence. He is in custody since 8^th December 2013. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the reason for his delayed arrest is that, in all the police papers, one assailant was described as 'Shailesh Ramdas Pawar', whereas the present applicant is 'Shailesh Chaban Pawar'. The learned counsel submits that suddenly, at a late stage, the applicant came to be arrested as 'Shailesh Pawar' who is involved in the alleged incident.

¶26

9 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to release him also on bail.

¶27

10 Applications are allowed.

¶28

OPERATIVE ORDER IN BA 252-14

¶29

Applicant – Parag Mayane is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount.

¶30

OPERATIVE ORDER IN BA 642-14

¶31

Applicant – Shailesh Pawar is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount.

¶32

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Parag Ramdas Mayane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parag Ramdas Mayane 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samit Dilip Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Daji Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanket Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Mohammad Majjid Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanesh Madhukar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra