Dismissed

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Jul 2021ABA/401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant was accused of stealing agricultural produce along with a co-accused. The court found prima facie material, including statements from a trader and the co-accused, necessitating custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; anticipatory bail not granted.

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

923-ABA-401-21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2021

¶5

KAMLAKAR DATTATRAYA CHIKHLE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Nitin S. Kadarale APP for Respondent-State : Mr. V. M. Kangne

¶8

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶9

DATE : 03.07.2021

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 50 of 2021 registered with Naygaon Police Station, District Nanded for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The informant alleges in the First Information Report (FIR) that he had stocked agricultural produce in his several bags in his shade in the filed. He noticed that few bags were missing. He followed the trail of the grain spilled over and could reach the house of the coaccused. He saw that the co-accused and the applicants were sleeping there. 10 bags of Toor and 5 bags of Green-gram were found at the

¶13

¶14

923-ABA-401-21.odt

¶15

place where they were sleeping. On questioning whether they had stolen the grain bags, they replied that they have stolen it and dared him to do whatever he wanted and ran from the spot. He lodged the report and the offence was registered.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has his own field and has yielded agricultural produces. The co-accused being a friend both were sleeping in the same house. No particulars have been given by the informant so as to identify the stolen grain. He is ready to co-operate the investigating officer and ad-interim anticipatory bail granted by order dated 28.04.2021 be confirmed.

¶17

Learned APP opposes the application on the ground that there is sufficient material to reveal complicity of the applicant in commission of the crime. There is no animosity between the informant and the applicant. He submits that there is disclosure statement by the co-accused which may be a weak piece of evidence, but, at this juncture, it is sufficient to reveal complicity of the applicant in commission of the crime. Learned APP also submits that there is a statement of Trader to whom the applicant and the co-accused has sold some of the grains and his statement is also substantiated by the record of his shop. At this juncture, this much of material is sufficient to reveal complicity of the applicant in commission of the crime. Therefore, custodial interrogation

¶18

¶19

923-ABA-401-21.odt

¶20

of applicant is necessary and the application may be rejected.

¶21

I have carefully perused the investigation papers. Though in normal course since it is a matter of stealing of agricultural produce, the question of identity of stolen property would be vital.

¶22

However, in the matter in hand, there are some important circumstances which prima facie would indicate link of present applicant with the crime.

¶23

Without there being any animosity the informant has attributed the crime to the applicant and the co-accused for apparently some valid reasons. He could reach the place where both were sleeping by following trail of the spilled over grain. He further entertained the suspicion because the co-accused had reiterated by confessing about having stolen the grain bags. Further, both of them, thereafter, fled from the spot. His version stands corroborated by the spot panchnama, wherein, the panchas did notice the trail from the place where the grains were stocked to the place where the applicants and co-accused were sleeping, on the basis of spilled grains.

¶24

Further, there is a statement of a trader by name Bajirao Dadarao Shinde, who has stated about both the accused having sold him some grain bags. Pertinently, he makes that statement by referring to the books of his shop.

¶25

¶26

923-ABA-401-21.odt

¶27

Lastly, though it would be a weak peace of evidence, there

¶28

is a confessional statement of the co-accused leading to the discovery revealing involvement of the applicant in the crime.

¶29

Considering all aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is indeed prima facie material to connect the applicant with the crime, the investigation in which would not be completed unless his custodial interrogation is resorted to.

¶30

The application is rejected.

¶31

rrd

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Ghanshyam Ghobale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagannath Kisan Pandangale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manikrao Marotrao Bharose and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Jagannath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Bapuraoji Gulkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Dagaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra