Allowed

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Feb 2021BA/125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to the applicant in a robbery case. The High Court held that custody was unjustified as the chargesheet contained no incriminating material, including no test identification parade or recovery of articles linking the applicant to the crime.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a Rs. 25,000 bond with one or two sureties.

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2021

¶5

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar... Applicant
 versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Sachin Deokar i/b. Vanmala N. Anuse, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶7

Smt. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State-Respondent.
Mr. Vijay A. Waghmare, P.S.I., Daund Police Station, Pune.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 05th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. The applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶11

connection with C.R. No.165/2017 registered at Daund Police
Station, Dist. Pune on 28th March 2017 under Sections 380, 461
and r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2. The applicant was arrested in this case on 15th July

¶13

2017 and since then he is in custody. The investigation is over and
the chargesheet is filed.

¶14

Deshmane(PS)

¶15

2 / 6 41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶16

3. Heard Mr. Sachin Deokar, learned Counsel for the
applicant and Smt. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶17

4. The F.I.R is lodged by one Mahadev Lonkar on 28th
March 2017. He has stated that between the night of 27th and 28th
March 2017 at about 3.30 a.m., he was planning to go to Phaltan.
He opened the door of his house at 3.30 a.m. He saw that three
persons were standing outside. Two of them, suddenly entered in
his house. The third one waited outside. The informant raised
shouts. Those three unknown persons, picked up a bag kept in the
house and took it away. There were gold ornaments worth
Rs.97,500/- and a mobile phone in that bag including. While
going, they locked the door from outside. The informant raised
shouts. The neighbours came there and rescued him and
thereafter, he lodged the F.I.R.

¶18

5. The investigation was carried out. During the
investigation it transpired that the offenders had committed
robbery in two more houses. The statement recorded of one
Kavita Kamble shows that at around 12:45 a.m., three unknown
persons entered her house. Her family members were threatened.

¶19

3 / 6 41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶20

They removed Rs.4,000/-, a mobile pone and ornaments worth
Rs.4,500/- worn by her. She has given the description of the three
offenders.

¶21

. Apart from her, the accused also entered the house of
one Anita Jagdale and from her house a mobile phone as well as
gold and silver ornaments were taken away forcibly by the
offenders.

¶22

6. During the investigation, supplementary statement of
the first informant was recorded and at that time he gave more
details about the incident. This time, he stated that the persons
who had entered his house had given blows with blunt side of
sickle on the informant’s son Sagar. The informant’s wife was also
given kick blows. His wife’s and sons’s statements support his
version.

¶23

. His further statement recorded on 26.7.2017 shows
that he was told by the police that 12 accused had committed this
offence. However, no test identification parade was conducted to
enable him to identify the present Applicant.

¶24

4 / 6 41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶25

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there
was no incriminating material against the present applicant at all.

¶26

8. The learned APP could not controvert this position.
However, she submitted that there was MCOCA case pending
against him.

¶27

9. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have
perused the chargesheet and investigation papers. They merely
contain statements supporting the informant’s case that robbery
was committed. However, there is no circumstance in the nature of
test identification parade or recovery of any incriminating articles
against him.

¶28

10. There is a memorandum statement of co-accused Sagar
Pawar recorded on 20.7.2017 under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. In that memorandum statement, names of his 11 co-accused,
including the present Applicant, were mentioned as the persons
who had committed that offence. Pursuant to this statement, the
articles worth Rs.79,100/- were recovered from a jewelers shop.
However, the portion of the memorandum statement, which was in

¶29

5 / 6 41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶30

the nature of confession of having committed the crime, is not
admissible. Thus, in the portion where the Applicant’s name
appears was inadmissible portion of the memorandum statement.
Thus, there was absolutely no evidence against the present
Applicant in the entire charge-sheet.

¶31

11. Inspite of this position, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Baramati, vide his order dated 29.8.2020 passed below
Exhibit-8 in Sessions Case No.160/2017 before him, rejected the
Applicant’s application for bail. The reasons given by learned
Judge were that the nature of the offence was very serious, the
charge was framed, the Applicant’s presence would be required
during the trial. The learned Judge observed that if the Applicant
was released on bail, he would abscond and would threaten the
informant and prosecution witnesses. Based on these reasonings,
his application was rejected.

¶32

12. The approach of learned Additional Sessions Judge in
refusing the bail to the present Applicant is absolutely wrong. If
there is no material against the accused in the entire chargesheet
then it was wholly unjustified to deny him bail on these

¶33

6 / 6 41 BA 125-2021.odt

¶34

reasonings. The most important aspect for consideration of prayer
for bail is the material collected against the accused showing his
involvement in the crime. In the present case there is not a single
piece of incriminating evidence against the present Applicant.

¶35

13. In this view of the matter, further custody of the
Applicant during pendency of the trial is not justified and he
deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the following order.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i)In connection with C.R. No.165/2017 registered at Daund
Police Station, Dist. Pune, the Applicant be released on bail on
his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶38

(ii)The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in

¶39

a month till conclusion of the trial against him.

¶40

(iii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Digitally signed by PradeepkumarP. Deshmane PradeepkumarP. DeshmaneDate: 2021.02.06 18:17:42 +0530

¶42

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶43

Deshmane (PS)

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Shivaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Manik Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray @ Datta Balu Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhaysinh Rajendra Kaldhone Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zahid Ahmed Khurshid Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yashwant Manohar Avhad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra