Allowed

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2021ABA/300/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted interim bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving assault, cheating, and conspiracy. The court observed the lack of direct evidence implicating the applicant, noted the complainant's shifting narrations, and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon arrest with conditions to attend the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim protection of bail confirmed; applicant to be released on bail of Rs. 25,000 upon arrest with conditions to attend investigation and not influence witnesses.

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

ISM

¶2

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2019

¶4

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale ….Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2019 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2019

¶8

Tejas Ravindra More ….Applicant

¶9

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶10

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale ….Applicant

¶11

V/s.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶13

Mr. Ashok Mundargi Senior Advocate a/w Karansingh Rajput for the applicant

¶14

Mr. Niranjan Bhavake for intervener Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik APP for the State

¶15

Mr. P. N. Jadhav

¶16

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JULY 26, 2021.

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

1] Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in C.R. No. 157 of 2017

¶19

1/8

¶20

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶21

registered with Rajwad Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Complainant Tejas More alleged that while he was travelling alongwith bank offcials on 15/09/2017 in a vehicle owned by the applicant, co-accused assaulted him and the bank offcials on the issue of road rage/accident. According to him, the vehicle was damaged to the tune of Rs. 30 Lakhs. It is the case of prosecution that complainant was assaulted, as such was hospitalised for long time. According to complainant, on 07/06/2018 an amount of Rs. 7 Crores was forced to be withdrawn by co-accused Anil Mohite which was indirectly transferred to the account of applicant and as such, applicant is benefted in the said offence. Based on the aforesaid complaint, offence came to be registered.

¶22

2] Mr. Ashok Mundargi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would urge that applicant was already protected by this Court vide order dated 06/02/2019 and as such applicant has cooperated in the investigation for last two and half years.

¶23

2/8

¶24

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶25

3] According to him, investigation is at advanced stage. Some of

¶26

the accused persons are already arrested in the crime in question. He would further claim that complainant was in fact partner of the applicant in a project and the vehicle i.e. damaged is owned by the applicant himself. As such, according to him, it is a case of false implication. Shri. Mundargi would also invite my attention to the very conduct of the complainant post registration of offence, so as to demonstrate false implication in the crime.

¶27

4] Learned APP opposed the claim on the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary as the applicant is attributed the role of a main conspirator. So as to substantiate her contention, she would invite my attention to the contents in the F.I.R. and the statement of a witness namely Mhatardev Kharmate. According to her, said witness has specifcally stated that he was informed by one bodyguard Mr. Ganesh that assault on the complainant was carried out at the behest of the applicant.

¶28

5] Considered rival submissions.

¶29

3/8

¶30

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶31

6] Ad-interim protection ordered in favour of the applicant on 06/02/2019 prompted the applicant to attend Investigating Offcer and co-operate in the investigation. In spite of arrest of some accused

¶32

and the applicant’s attendance before the Investigating Offcer, nothing incriminating could be noticed on the record of the Investigating Offcer, so as to infer direct involvement of the applicant in the crime as has been alleged. For the past almost two and half years, applicant is on Ad-interim protection and there is hardly any material to connect the applicant to the crime on the issue of conspiracy.

¶33

7] No doubt the said protection was ordered as the Investigating Offcer at the relevant time has not cooperated/assisted this Court in deciding the bail application. At this stage, learned APP has produced the report of the Investigating Offcer.

¶34

8] There are in all 7 accused and applicant is shown to be accused

¶35

no. 7. Other 5 accused in the case are absconding.

¶36

4/8

¶37

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶38

9] Learned counsel for the complainant who has assisted the learned APP has strenuously opposed the prayer for confrmation of Ad-interim protection on the ground that applicant is benefciary of the monetary part involved in the crime in question. According to him, amount of Rs. 7 Crores was forcibly withdrawn from the account of complainant at the behest of co-accused Anil Mohite. Said amount has gone to the account of the applicant through a frm which is dealing in the development of immovable property. According to him, there is suffcient material to infer prima facie involvement of the applicant.

¶39

10] Investigation papers depicts that the vehicle in which the complainant was travelling alongwith bank offcial is owned by the applicant himself. The complainant had certain transactions in relation to land with co-accused Anil Mohite who appears to have hatched conspiracy alongwith other co-accused and committed offence.

¶40

5/8

¶41

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶42

11] Complainant on 18/09/2017 informed the then Investigating Offcer about withdrawing the allegation against the applicant and also cancellation of registration of offence. Complainant thereafter moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 3846 of 2017 for the very same relief and has withdrawn the same. Subsequently, again he changed his version and impleaded the applicant as conspirator with coaccused Anil Mohite on the issue of withdrawal of amount from his bank account. After the aforesaid statement on 07/06/2018, 10/08/2018, the complainant has taken again a U turn and stated that applicant and Anil Mohite are not involved in the crime. Even if the complainant has claimed that aforesaid acts of withdrawal of allegation against the applicant are under pressure from the applicant and other co-accused, however, this Court cannot be insensitive to the very conduct of the complainant of repeatedly changing his stand during the investigation. The fact remains that complainant approached this Court for quashing of prosecution against the applicant which petition was withdrawn by him.

¶43

12] Though the prosecution has relied on the statement of

¶44

6/8

¶45

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶46

Mhatardeo @ Kailas Kharmate, bank offcial from the S.B.I. Mr. Subhash Das, statement of both these witnesses have not implicated the applicant. Rather the bank offcial has stated that applicant after the alleged incident of assault reached the spot of the incident. Otherwise he was to meet the said witness alongwith complainant at the spot of site where development project was to be implemented for which loan proposal was moved.

¶47

13] Witness Mhatardeo Kharmate who claimed to be working as bodyguard and driver with co-accused Anil Mohite, referred to the involvement of the applicant based on the heresay evidence which has hardly any evidential value.

¶48

14] It appears that investigation carried out till this date, particularly the statement of aforesaid two witnesses, absence of any evidence thereby implicating the applicant in the commission of crime in question particularly on the aspect of hatching conspiracy and the fact that applicant is on Ad-interim protection for last two and half years, in my opinion, case for confrmation of Ad-interim

¶49

7/8

¶50

27.300.19 aba.doc

¶51

protection is made out. As such, following order:

¶52

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in C.R. No. 157/2017 registered with Rajgad Police Station, Pune, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶53

(ii) Applicant shall attend the Investigating Offcer on 02/08/2021, 05/08/2021, 09/08/2021 and 12/08/2021 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Offcer.

¶54

(iii) Applicant shall not infuence the witnesses in any way or tamper with evidence.

¶55

15] Application stands disposed of.

¶56

16] Intervention application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶57

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶58

8/8

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Narayan Bhosale 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

Rekha Avtar Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Dilip Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rikabchand Aslaji Oswal Vs Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda Decd. through Lhr and Anr.

Abhishek Mimani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. Vs Shri. Gopalkrishna Sitaram Mundada and Ors.

Pandurang Narayan Sakhare Vs Redrapashupati Guru Nirvan Rudra Pashupati Swami @