Allowed

Vishal Babasaheb Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2017BA/2643/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application regarding murder under IPC and the Arms Act, the High Court at Bombay allowed bail. Relying on the principle of parity, the Court found that a co-accused attracted more serious role and was already released on bail, entitling the present applicant to similar treatment despite not having actively participated in the assault.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- and reporting to police station on alternate Sundays until framing of charge.

Vishal Babasaheb Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2643 OF 2016

¶4

Vishal Babasaheb Gaikwad )...Applicant

¶5

V/s. State OF Maharashtra )...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Arun Rajput i/by Anjali Patil, Advocates for the Applicant. Ms. V.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶7

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 16^th JANUARY 2017.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is the second bail application of the applicantaccused in Crime No.10/2015 registered with Warje Malwadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 201 of IPC, under Sections 3,4,25,27 of the Arms Act and under Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The first bail application of the present applicantaccused was rejected by this Court with an observation that the present applicant was standing near the spot with his motor-cycle in running condition and after commission of murder of Sahin

¶10

Shivgan 1/6

¶11

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

¶12

Shinde, assailants occupied pillion seat of motor-cycle of the present applicant to flee from the spot. With this, this Court found case of the applicant not fit for grant of bail.

¶13

2 Heard learned counsel appearing for the accusedapplicant. He argued that co-accused Vishal @ Shensha Jaysingh Lokhande has been released on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 2.12.2016 in Criminal Bail Application No.2248 of 2016. The learned counsel argued that case against this co-accused Vishal @ Shensha was more strong than the case against the present applicant. The learned counsel by taking me through the statements of eye witnesses has contended that coaccused Vishal @ Shensha was dancing on the scene of occurrence while Sachin was being murdered by the co-accused. Learned counsel further pointed out the fact that after commission of murder, Vishal @ Shensha had taken assailants named Nakul and Amey with him on his motor-cycle. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is evidence of telephonic conversation between the co-accused Vishal @ Shensha and the main accused persons in this case of conspiracy to commit murder of Sachin

¶14

Shivgan 2/6

¶15

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

¶16

Shinde. According to the learned counsel for the applicantaccused, with all this evidence against Vishal @ Shensha, subsequent to the rejection of bail application of the present applicant, Vishal @ Shensha has been released on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court and, therefore, applicant-accused is also entitled for the same treatement.

¶17

3 The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the present applicant has facilitated assailants to flee from the spot as they occupied pillion seat of the motor-cycle of the present applicant and, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶18

4 I have carefully considered rival submissions and also

¶19

perused the charge-sheet including statements of eye witnesses namely, Sachin Kale, Pratik Pasalkar and Ganesh Rajiwade. All these three eye witnesses are describing role of the present applicant as the person who was standing by the side of the road by keeping engine of his motor-cycle in running condition. These eye witnesses have further stated that Murli Khandagale and Yogesh Shingade occupied pillion seats of the motor-cycle of

¶20

Shivgan 3/6

¶21

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

¶22

Vishal Gaikwad for leaving the scene of the offence.

¶23

5 Statements of eye witnesses depict that when the offence of murder was being committed by co-accused, one of the accused namely, Vishal @ Shensha was dancing on the scene of the offence in order to exhort assailants and after hearing shouts that police have arrived at the scene, this co-accused Vishal @ Shensha had taken assailants' named Nakul and Amey along with him on his motor-cycle. Charge-sheet also reflected telephonic conversation between the co-accused Vishal @ Shensha and the assailants.

¶24

6 With this material against Vishal @ Shensha, he has been released on bail by order dated 2.12.2016 and observations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order are relevant. They read thus,

¶25

“3)...................Eye witnesses claim as they had seen the present applicant at the distance making gestures in order to exhort the accused persons and after hearing a cry that the police have arrived, applicant had taken Nakul and Amey along with him on his motor-cycle. The role attributed to the applicant was of exhortation and harbouring the offenders. Eye

4/6

Shivgan

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

witnesses are consistent about the role played by the present applicant.

¶30

The learned counsel for the applicant rightly submits that there is no material to even remotely indicate that applicant had actually participated in assaulting Sachin Shinde, neither he was armed with weapons.”

¶31

7 It is, thus, seen that co-accused Vishal @ Shensha to

¶32

whom more serious role in the crime was attributed by the prosecution is enlarged on bail with observation that there is no material to even remotely indicate that applicant (Vishal @ Shensha) has actually participated in the assault. When coaccused with some more role in crime in question is already released on bail by this Court, on the principle of parity, the present applicant also deserves the same treatment and, therefore, order:

¶33

(1) Application is allowed.

¶34

(2) Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond in the sum of

¶35

Shivgan 5/6

¶36

4-BA-2643-2016.doc

¶37

Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent

¶38

sureties in the like amount.

¶39

(3) Applicant shall report to WarjeMalwadi Police Station on 1^st and 3^rd Sunday of each month, commencing from his release on bail till the framing of charge.

¶40

(4) Application stands disposed of .

¶41

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶42

Shivgan 6/6

Vishal Babasaheb Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Babasaheb Gaikwad 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

Bhoopsingh Surgyansingh Bhanu and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishalkumar Madine Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramprakash @ Prakash Ramchander Bharti and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Adesh Ganpat Nikam and Anr.

Dhanaji Dnyanoba Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hanmant Narayan Manjratkar and Ors.