Santosh Laxman Vaid Vs the State of Maharashtra

1 of 4 931.BA.2124.2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2124 OF 2019

¶4

Santosh Laxman Vaid

¶5

Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Ms.Mallika A. Ingale for applicant.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, or State.

¶10

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶11

DATE : 18th December 2019

¶12

PC :

¶13

1.The applicant is arrested in connection with CR No.299 of
2018 registered with Manchar Police Station for offences under
Sections 302, 201, 143, 147, 149 of IPC and Sections 37(1)(3) and
135 of Mumbai Police Act. The applicant was arrested on 23rd July
2018.

¶14

2.The prosecution case is that on 26th June 2018 the
complainant i.e. the wife of the deceased was informed by Suresh
Kapadi that her husband had fallen in gutter in Kathapur. The police
were informed. The body of the deceased was recovered and sent
for post mortem. Accidental death was registered. On 27th June
2018 one Kailas Ponde informed the complainant that the applicant
had taken her husband at Nimantran Hotel on the evening of 26th
June 2018. The complainant made inquiries with the applicant and
asked him about her husbamd. The applicant had allegedly
informed her that both of them had visited Nimantran Dhaba. The
other accused were also there at Dhaba. One Ram Walunj had

¶15

2 of 4 931.BA.2124.2019.doc

¶16

assaulted the victim and told him to go home. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. The accused Popat Kapdi was having
grudge against the deceased due to property dispute. The accused
assaulted the deceased. On 14th July 2018 Kailas Gaikwad had
informed the complainant that he had seen the deceased along with
accused at the spot on 25th June 2018. During the course of
investigation the recorded conversation between the applicant and
the co-accused was recovered. On completing investigation charge
sheet is filed.

¶17

3.Learned advocate for applicant submitted that there is no
cogent material against applicant about his involvement in the crime.
The co-accused Pandurang Karande has been granted bail by this
Court. Other accused were granted bail by this Court. Except the
applicant, all other accused are on bail. Learned counsel also relied
upon opinion sought by investigating agency about cause of death
and the circumstances in which the death is possible.

¶18

4.Learned APP submitted that there is sufficient evidence against
applicant to show his involvement. The case is based on
circumstantial evidence. The complainant’s statement refers to the
fact that applicant and deceased had travelled together on the date
of incident on motorcycle. There is evidence of last seen together.
The statement of witnesses indicate that the applicant and deceased
had left together and thereafter dead body was found. The
conversation between the applicant and co-accused Pandurang
Karande reveals suspicion about the conduct of applicant and
indicate that they were involved in the crime.

¶19

3 of 4 931.BA.2124.2019.doc

¶20

5.I have perused the evidence on record. Except last seen
together there is no strong evidence against applicant. The opinion
sought by police mentions that the deceased had died due to
drowning. Other questions put up for opinion were not answered
with clear opinion. It is stated that there is possibility that person
can fall by loosing his balance and the possibility of pushing him also
cannot be ruled out. While granting bail to co-accused Pandurang
Karande, this Court vide order dated 13th August 2019 in Bail
Application No.506 of 2019 has referred to the statement of
applicant and co-accused with regards to conversation between them
recorded on 28th June 2018. It is further observed that the post
mortem report speaks of cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning.
Certain injuries were noticed on the body of deceased, which the
Doctor has opined as caused due to fall in the water. The post
mortem report speaks about two liters of water in the stomach of the
deceased. Pandurang and all other accused are granted bail by this
Court.

¶21

6.Considering the nature of evidence, further detention of the
applicant is not required and case for grant of bail is made out.
Hence, I pass following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i)Criminal Bail Application No.2124 of 2019 is allowed and
disposed of;

¶24

(ii)The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection
with CR No.299 of 2018 registered with Manchar Police Station, on
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more
sureties in the like amount;

¶25

4 of 4 931.BA.2124.2019.doc

¶26

(iii)The applicant shall report Manchar Police Station once in a
month on every first Saturday between 10 am and 12 noon till
further orders;

¶27

(iv)The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall attend
Trial Court proceedings regularly, unless exempted by the Trial Court
for some reasons.

¶28

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶29

MST

Santosh Laxman Vaid v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Laxman Vaid 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

Mushtaq Kasam Khot and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satishkumar Dharmadev Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aklak Kondaji Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Kumar Singh S/O. Garib Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Madhukar Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ba @ Firoz Dilawar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra