Dismissed

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Mar 2019ACB/76/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application filed by the father of the deceased seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a dowry death case. The Court held that there was no evidence to support the claim of investigation interference and noted the presence of key eyewitnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application fails and is dismissed; Rule is discharged.

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 916 ACB 76-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

APPLICATION FOR CANCELATION OF BAIL NO. 76 OF 2018

¶4

Arjun Vikram Badhe,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Kekat Jalgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad....Applicant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Chaklamba, Dist. Beed.

¶7

2] Narmadabai Ambadas Garkal, Age : 58 years, Occu. House Wife,

¶8

3] Eknath Ambadas Garkal, Age : 24 years, Occu. Service as Police Constable at Police Station, Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶9

4]Gahininath Ambadas Garkal,
Age : 28 years, Occu.
Agriculture,
5]Ambadas Dinkar Garkal,
Age : 50 years, Occu.
Agriculture,
All R/o Pargaon, Tq. Shirur,
Dist. Beed....Respondents
.......
Mr. H. M. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, A. P. P. for Respondent
No. 1.
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
2 to 5.
.......
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
 DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2019

¶10

2 916 ACB 76-2018

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of both the parties.

¶13

02.I have heard Mr. H. M. Shaikh, the learned
Counsel for the applicant, Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, the
learned A. P. P. for the State-respondent No. 1 and
Mr. N. B. Narwade, the learned Counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 to 5-accused.

¶14

03.Sangita is the deceased. Respondent No. 2
Narmadabai is her mother-in-law. Respondent No. 3
Eknath is her brother-in-law, respondent No. 4-
Gahininath Garkal - her husband and 5-Ambadas Garkal
is her father-in-law.

¶15

04.Presentistheapplicationfor

¶16

cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour
of Narmadabai and Eknath by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Beed, dated 4.6.2018 in Criminal
Bail Application No. 228 of 2018 and grant of
regular bail in favour of the respondent No. 4-
Gahininath and respondent No. 5-Ambadas by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 4.6.2018
in Criminal Bail Application No. 240 of 2018.

¶17

05.The present application for cancellation

¶18

3 916 ACB 76-2018

¶19

of bail is filed by Arjun Kisan Bade-father of the
deceased-Sangita. He is also the first informant.
He lodged the report on 15.4.2018 with Police

¶20

Station, Chaklamba, Dist. Beed, on 15.4.2018. The
incident, in which Sangita lost her life is dated
13.4.2018. On the basis of the report, the offence
was registered vide C. R. No. 58 of 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A
and read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondents No.
4 and 5 i.e. husband and father-in-law were arrested
on 16.4.2018.

¶21

06.According to the learned Counsel for the
applicant, the respondent No. 3-Eknath, who is
working as a Police Constable at Pathardi, Police
Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, has influenced the course
of the investigation and, therefore, the bail
granted in favour of the respondents be canceled.
It is also his submission that the deceased has met
with homicidal death at the hands of the accused
persons. Therefore, the bail granted to them be
canceled.

¶22

07.The learned A. P. P. and the Counsel for

¶23

the accused submitted that during the pendency of

¶24

4 916 ACB 76-2018

¶25

the present application for cancellation of bail,
the investigating agency has already filed charge-
sheet before the Court of Law. According to the
charge-sheet, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
304-B, 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.
P. C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

08.With the assistance of the Counsel, I
perused the P. M. report placed before me. It shows
that there were no external injuries on the body of
deceased Sangita. The Autopsy Surgeons gave their
opinion that death is due to drowning. Though, in
the P. M. report, final opinion is reserved till
receipt of chemical analysis report of viscera. The
charge-sheet shows that C. A. report is received and
it does not contain any poison in the viscera. It
will be always open for the Autopsy Surgeon to
tender his final opinion even during the course of
the trial after examining the chemical analyzer’s
report.

¶27

09.Though the first information report was

¶28

for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the
I. P. C., the Investigating Officer in his wisdom
after collection of the evidence during the course

¶29

5 916 ACB 76-2018

¶30

of the investigation, found that the evidence is not
there for sending the accused persons to face trial
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

¶31

I. P. C. However, it shall be always open for the
learned Judge of the Court below, after perusal of
the entire charge-sheet and after recording of the
evidence, to add the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the I. P. C.

¶32

10.However, at this stage, the statements of
Mandabai, Vaishali and Ashabai show that on the day
of the incident, they have witnessed the incident of
Sangita jumping in the lake.

¶33

11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that Eknath, being the member of the Constabulary, has influenced the course of the investigation, in my view, can not be accepted without there being any foundation. The investigation is conducted by the senior Police Officer. Therefore, prima facie the submission on the part of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Constable will influence the course of the investigation, can not be accepted.

¶34

12.The Court below has granted anticipatory
bail in favour of Narmadabai and Eknath on 4.6.2018

¶35

6 916 ACB 76-2018

¶36

and regular bail in favour of Gahininath and Ambadas
on the very same day. They were also directed to
attend Investigating Officer on every Wednesday and
Sunday till the filing of the charge-sheet. It is
not the claim of the learned Prosecutor that the
respondent Nos. 2 to 5-accused have any time flouted
the condition imposed upon them by the learned Trial
Court.

¶37

13.Since the charge-sheet is already filed
and in view of the specific statements of the
witnesses Mandabai, Vaishali and Ashabai, which show
that they witnessed the incident of Sangita taking
jump in the lake, have to be given due importance.
The statements of the 3 persons Mandabai, Vaishali
and Ashabai have also been recorded under Section
164 of Cr. P. C. Consequently, I see no merit in
the present application to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court.
Consequently the application fails and the same is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶38

 [V. M. DESHPANDE]

¶39

 JUDGE

¶40

Dahibhate/-

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shivaji Kadu Chinchole Vs Champalal Bhagwan Borse and Ors.

M/S. Jark Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar through Its Manager Sagar Singhal S/O. Vedprakash Singhal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harun Khan Jarwar Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.