The High Court allowed the bail application of Mangesh Chavan, charged with murder and abetment, granting release subject to a bond and attendance conditions, relying on the delay in trial and his peripheral role.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3184 OF 2019
Digitally signed byMandira Mandira Salgaonkar Salgaonkar Date: 2020.12.07 21:33:31 +0530
Mangesh @ Malang Vishnu Chavan..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
…
Mr.Satyavrat Joshi for the Applicant.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2020
P.C:-
1.The applicant, aged 23 years, seek his release on bail in
Sessions Case No.445 of 2016, being charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 506(2) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 37(1), 135 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, in C.R.No.40 of 2016 registered
with Samarth Police Station, Pune.
2.The applicant came to be arrested on 30th March, 2016
and since then he is behind the bar. The sessions trial has
commenced and has reached the stage of cross-examination.
The bail application of the applicant came to be rejected on 13th
March, 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune,
on account of the conduct of the applicant, by recording a
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
finding that the accused avoided the cross-examination and this
conduct disentitle him from being released on bail by taking
into account the seriousness of the offence and severity of the
penalty imposed.
3.The learned counsel, Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, has taken me
through the charge-sheet and he submit that there is no
material warranting his incarceration so long as even assuming
for a minute that the prosecution case is proved as contained in
the charge-sheet, the role attributed to him is only assisting the
accused persons to flee away from the spot where they
assaulted deceased Ganesh and the applicant was waiting at the
entrance of the Lodge where the incident took place and the
accused persons by pillion riding his motorcycle has fled away
from the spot. The learned counsel submit that he is not
charged of any assault nor it is the case of the prosecution that
he participated in the assault by using any weapon. The
learned counsel also submit that the co-accused-Ganesh
Salunkhe is already released on bail by this Court and the
applicant is entitled for a similar treatment.
4.The FIR came to be lodged by one Amarchand, who
allege that on 26th March, 2016, a brawl had taken place
between two of his acquaintances being Ganesh Kamble and
Somesh Anar at the time of Shivjayanti celebration at Amol
Lodge, Somvar Peth, Pune. At that time, Somesh had hit
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
Ganesh in his head and this was informed to the complainant
by Ganesh on 27th March, 2016. When the complainant
expressed his concern, Ganesh is said to have stated that he will
deal with Somesh Anar.
The complainant then referred to an incident dated 28th
March, 2016, which was a second day of Holi and he state that
after playing colours, when some of the friends had gathered at
Amol Lodge, Ganesh Kamble, Omkar Kamble alongwith others
were sipping beer. The complainant also participated in the
Holi celebration, drank beer and after some time, stepped down
the Lodge for playing Holi. At that time, Ganesh Kamble and
Ganesh Kamathi came to the spot and informed that some fight
had ensued in Parge Chowk and, therefore, they approached
the said spot where Ganesh Kamathi and other boys were
fighting. The quarrel being of trivial nature, was put to an end
and after that, as per the say of Ganesh Kamble, the applicant
rode him alongwith Rahul Velekar at Amol Lodge for continuing
the feast. At that time, Ganesh Kamble used the complainant’s
phone and he called Rajesh and 2-3 other persons and he
verbally abused Rajesh on telephone. The complainant told
Ganesh that Rajesh is his friend and asked him why he is
abusing Rajesh, but Ganesh did not respond. At around 3.45 to
4.00 p.m., Somesh arrived at the Lodge with his friend Ganesh
Salunkhe and he was armed with one long sharp weapon and
he questioned Ganesh Kamble as to why he has called up his
brother Rajesh. Somesh assaulted Ganesh in his head, then on
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
neck and right hand. The complainant took rescue in a nearby
washroom and watched the incident from there. At that time,
Somesh also hit the complainant with a beer bottle by saying
that Ganesh had used his phone for calling his brother. Ganesh
was found lying on the ground in an injured condition and at
that time, Somesh and his accomplice Ganesh Salunkhe
alongwith the weapons left the Lodge.
5.The above incident resulted into the registration of FIR.
The injured Ganesh succumbed to the injuries on 28th March,
2016 itself and the cause of death was opined to be “Due to
multiple chop injuries with stab injury over neck”. The
postmortem report, in column No.17, refer to as many as 28
injuries. Most of them being chop injuries and some being
incise one. The complainat-Amarchand was also referred to an
Orthopedic Doctor. Somesh and Ganesh Salunkhe were named
as the accused in the FIR.
6.The investigating machinery proceeded to investigate the
incident, conducted spot panchanama and arrested the two
accused persons. The statement of the witnesses were
recorded, which include the statement of one Kiran Dhende,
who was a participant in the celebration of Holi. He state that
at 3.30 p.m., he was waiting for his friends at Ashwini Mitra
Mandal square. At that time, he noticed that one Ganesh
Salunkhe, Mangesh Chavan (applicant) and one other boy with
long hair, came riding on the motorcycle and the other two
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
pillion riders got down from the motorcycle, but Mangesh
continued to sit on the motorcycle. Some discussion took place
between them and the witness state that the boy with long hair
was carrying sharp weapon. He saw the two persons entering in
Amol Lodge and he suspected that some untoward incident is
likely to happen. After 20 to 25 minutes, Ganesh Salunkhe and
other person accompanying him, came running out of the
Lodge and it is at that time, Mangesh i.e. the present applicant
started his motorbike. The other two sat on the motorbike and
they left towards 15th August square. Kiran has stated that he
had seen the boys at a close distance and Ganesh Salunkhe and
Mangesh Chavan are known to him. On the basis of the said
statement, the applicant was also indicted in the said crime and
came to be arrested.
7.The charge-sheet contain statement of several witnesses,
but as far as the present applicant is concerned, he is charge-
sheeted for his involvement to the aforesaid extent of assisting
the accused persons to flee away from the spot. The applicant
is alleged to have being waiting outside the Lodge and as soon
as Ganesh and Somesh came out of the Lodge after assaulting
the complainant and deceased Ganesh, he started the
motorbike and rode away the two accused persons from the
Lodge. This is the precise charge against the applicant.
8. On 16th January, 2018, the bail application of Ganesh Ramchandra Salunkhe, the co-accused, was heard by noting
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
that no specific overt act is attributed to him except that he
accompanied Somesh to the spot and fled away from the spot
alongwith Somesh. This Court (Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) was
pleased to release him on bail. Somesh was denied parity with
the said applicant as he was the key assailant.
9.The learned APP has vehemently argued that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has denied the bail to the
applicant on the ground of his conduct. I do not think that the
applicant deserve denial of his liberty only because the counsel
for the accused avoided the cross-examination and in person,
he declined to cross-examine and an order of cross-examination
was required to be passed. In any case, this has happened in the
month of March, 2019 and it is almost 18 months when the
said order was passed. When specifically asked to the learned
APP, whether there is any further progress in the trial, the
response of the learned APP is in negative. It is to be noted that
in the wake of pandemic, the trials are likely to be delayed,
particularly when from the month of March till the reopening of
the Court in terms of the SOP issued by the High Court with
effect from 22nd of November, the trial courts did not proceed
with the evidence. The trial in the present case, though at the
fag end, is also likely to be delayed. The applicant is
incarcerated since 2016 i.e. for a period of four years. Taking
into consideration the role attributed to him in the charge-
sheet, subject to the stipulation that the applicant will not flee
M.M.Salgaonkar
7/7 16 BA-3184-19.doc
away from the course of justice, by imposing strict conditions,
the applicant deserve to be released on bail.
10.The observations made above, are prima facie in nature
and based on the material placed before me in the form of
charge-sheet. The trial has commenced and it is expected that
it should be completed with utmost priority by keeping in mind
the SOP, which the Sessions Court is duty bound to abide by.
: ORDER :
(a) Application is allowed.
(b)Applicant -Mangesh @ Malang Vishnu Chavan shall
be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.40 of 2016
registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, on
furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with
one or two sureties of the like amount.
(c)Applicant shall mark his presence, once in every
month, before the Trial Court and shall attend the trial on
each and every date and will not cause any delay in
conclusion of the trial.
11.Criminal Bail Application No.3184 of 2019 stands
disposed of in the aforestated terms.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J
M.M.Salgaonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves release on bail considering he was denied parity for avoiding cross-examination and the trial commencement delay.
Whether strict conditions can be imposed to ensure the applicant does not flee or cause delay pending trial conclusion.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangesh @ Malang Vishnu Chavan
The State of Maharashtra
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court