Allowed

Sharad Dayaram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Dec 2021BA/1397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court considered the merits of the prosecution case involving an alleged murder and traffic offence. The Court held that the evidence was largely circumstantial and noted gaps in the prosecution narrative regarding the timeline and eyewitness reliability. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed and the applicant was released on bail with PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Sharad Dayaram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1397 OF 2021

¶4

Sharad Dayaram Rathod

¶5

= APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra= RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Joydeep Chatterji,Advocate for Applicant;
Mr.AM Phule,APP for Respondent-State.

¶9

 -----

¶10

CORAM: SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 20th December, 2021.

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1.Present application has been filed under

¶13

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is accused
No.1, who has been arrested in connection with CR
No.70/2021 dated 27.6.2021 registered with Songir
Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences
punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 302, 120(b),
201, read with 34 of IPC and under Section 184, 134
and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶14

2.It can be seen that the FIR was, in fact,

¶15

lodged initially for the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and under Sections 184,
134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However,

¶16

later on, how the investigation went, it has been

¶17

(2)

¶18

registered under Sections 302, 120(b), 201 read
with 34 of IPC.

¶19

3.It is the prosecution story now that

¶20

there is illicit relation between the present
applicant and accused No.3, who was wife of
deceased and in order to eliminate the deceased,
present applicant and accused No.2 alleged to have
committed murder of the deceased by dashing a
running vehicle on his person and creating a scene
of an accident.

¶21

4.Heard learned Advocate for the applicant
and learned APP for Respondent-State. In order to
cut short, it can be stated that both of them have
made submissions in support of their respective
contentions.

¶22

5.It is pertinent to note that charge sheet

¶23

is filed with the concerned Court on 29.9.2021,
therefore, custody of the present applicant, who
came to be arrested on 2.7.2021, is not required
for the purpose of investigation. As aforesaid,
the FIR has been lodged by cousin brother of the

¶24

(3)

¶25

deceased under Section 304-A, 279 of IPC and
Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act that too against
unknown vehicle. Post-mortem was conducted after
inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. Probable
cause of death is stated as, “cardio respiratory

¶26

arrest due to hemorrhagic shock due to (Head
injury) subdural haematoma.”. It does not state
any such injury and it’s nature is homicidal death.
As per the spot panchanama, it is stated that the
incident occurred on Lamkani-Boris road, just near

¶27

a temple. Statements of witnesses have been

¶28

recorded. Some of them are hear-say or reached to
the place of occurrence after the incident had
taken place. The prosecution appears to rely on a
statement of one Anil Borse, who is stated to be an
eye-witness. He says that the incident had taken

¶29

place at about 9.30 pm on 26.5.2021. He could
notice that an Innova Car had dashed a pedestrian,
but he could not notice the registration number of

¶30

the car. When he went near that person, he found
that he was his cousin brother. Question arises
when he had noticed the incident on 26.5.2021, then
why he had not informed the said fact to the police
on the same day. The informant is also cousin

¶31

(4)

¶32

brother of the deceased and the informant does not
say that said Anil Borse had informed him that he
had seen the incident. Even if we accept the
statement of Anil Borse as it is, it would rather
give picture of accidental death and as per his
statement, the accident had occurred at 9.30 pm.
The police have seized CCTV footage from one hotel
namely Hotel Suruchi and the CCTV footage recorded
from 19:41:56 to 20:48:36 would show that the
deceased was along with the present applicant and
co-accused No.2.

¶33

6.Learned APP was directed by this Court to
seek instructions from the Investigating Officer
and accordingly the Investigating Officer was
present today before the Court. Learned APP submits
through Investigating Officer, who is present that
there is no CCTV installed in the temple, which is
around or near the spot of the incident. He also
informed that the CCTV footage that is collected
during the investigation installed at Suruchi
Hotel, is at a distance of about 12 kms. from the
spot of the offence. Whether this piece of
evidence, i.e. CCTV footage, can be taken as `last

¶34

(5)

¶35

seen together’ is a question, which has to be
answered on the basis of evidence that comes before
the Trial Court.

¶36

7.There appears to be no other evidence to

¶37

support the case of the prosecution that there were
illicit relations between accused No.3 and accused
No.1. However, the learned APP submits that the
CDR, that has been collected, shows that they were
in contact with each other even on the day of the
incident. That would be a circumstantial evidence
at the most, that too depending on the evidence
that would be adduced. Therefore, when this case
is based on the circumstantial evidence and also
the prosecution itself is coming with a case
initially that it was the accident, then the

¶38

present applicant deserves to be released on bail.
Hence, following order, -

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i.The Bail Application stands
allowed.

¶41

ii.The applicant be released on
bail in connection with CR No.70/2021
dated 27.6.2021 registered with Songir
Police Station, District Dhule, for the

¶42

(6)

¶43

offences punishable under Sections 304-A,
279, 302, 120(b), 201, read with 34 of
IPC and under Sections 184, 134 and 187
of Motor Vehicles Act on PR bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs) with two
solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

¶44

iii.The applicant shall not visit
village Sarwad, Tq. And Dist. Dhule till
conclusion of the trial.

¶45

iv.The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity nor shall tamper
with the prosecution evidence in any
manner.

¶46

v.Along with submitting the bail
papers before the learned Trial Judge,
the applicant shall give his complete
address of the place of residence where
he intends to reside till end of the
trial.

¶47

vi.The applicant shall also give
the said information to the Investigating
officer along with mobile number and
shall comply with the requirements set
out in Para No.12 (1) to (6) of Chapter-I
of Criminal Manual, whichever are
applicable.

¶48

vii.Bail before the trial Court.

¶49

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
 JUDGE

¶50

BDV

Sharad Dayaram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Dayaram Rathod 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

Ramesh Manga @ Mangal Kadaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Girmaji Warkare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit Gangadhar Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baswaraj Madhavrao Dharmaje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baswaraj Madhavrao Dharmaje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Haribhau Lonkar Vs Vinod Mohan Javak and Another