Allowed

Kisan Bhima Dhandre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021BA/1869/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1869 of 2021, allowed an application for bail for the applicant charged with murder and dacoity. The court found the case relied on circumstantial evidence and a disclosure statement without direct proof of the applicant's presence or instruction-giving, deeming it insufficient to justify continued detention.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in sum of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to standard conditions of not tampering with witnesses and attending the police station.

Kisan Bhima Dhandre Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1869 OF 2021

¶5

KISAN BHIMA DHANDRE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Ms.Pooja Agarwal i/b. Mr.Prakash Chavan a/w. Mr.Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr.Ameet Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶12

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

 RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th OCTOBER 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1 The present application has been moved by the applicant

¶16

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime

¶17

No.177 of 2016 registered with Police Station Khed, for offences

¶18

punishable under Section 396, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC).

¶19

AVK 1/6

¶20

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶21

2It is the case of the prosecution that on 27th July 2016 the
informant’s nephew namely Arun @ Mangesh Tabaji Chabukswar
(since deceased) had taken Scorpio bearing Registration No.MH-
12-MF-0404 on rental basis at the request of accused Deepak
Dyandev Kasavi and Santosh @ Bapu Ramdas Jadhav. It is
alleged that these accused robbed the deceased of Rs.1600/- and
a mobile worth Rs.2000/-, in all Rs.3600/- and after killing the
deceased threw his body in the bushes in order to cause evidence
disappear. Accordingly, First Information Report (FIR) came to
be lodged against these two accused persons.

¶22

3However, it further appears that on 18th October 2016
informant’s supplementary statement came to be recorded
wherein he revealed the names of Kisan Bhima Dhandre (present
applicant), Samir Mohd. Rafique Inamdar, Ramdas Maruti
Salunke and Ganesh Bhagwan Rajguru.

¶23

4 Ms.Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, at the

¶24

very outset, submits that the whole case of prosecution is based AVK 2/6

¶25

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶26

on circumstantial evidence. Except the alleged Discovery
statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is
no direct evidence to connect the present applicant-accused to
the alleged offence. Other co-accused are on bail and the fact
that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the present
applicant-accused deserves to be released on bail, argued learned
counsel.

¶27

5 Mr.Ameet Palkar, learned APP, on the other hand, fairly

¶28

submits that the present applicant-accused came to be roped in
on the basis of Discovery statement recorded under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act and then submitted that appropriate order may
be passed.

¶29

6 I have perused the investigation papers including the

¶30

statement of prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation. I agree with submission of the learned counsel for

¶31

the applicant-accused that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no prima facie AVK 3/6

¶32

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶33

evidence to show that the present applicant-accused either was
seen in the company of the deceased immediately before the
incident or that he, in any manner, acted on the instructions of
the main accused, namely, Deepak Dyandev Kasavi and Santosh
@ Bapu Ramdas Jadhav. The only statement of prosecution
witness, namely, Bharat Rajendra Gaikwad shows that he had
seen the accused namely Deepak Dyandev Kasavi and Santosh @
Bapu Ramdas Jadhav talking with the deceased while taking the
latter’s vehicle on rental basis. His statement nowhere shows
involvement of the present applicant.

¶34

7 I also agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant-accused and as also the learned APP that pursuant to the Disclosure statement allegedly given by the applicant-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, sattoor and koyta with blood stained clothes came to be seized at his instance. At this stage, when no other direct evidence is forthcoming, in my considered opinion, this circumstance in the form of Disclosure statement is not sufficient to allow the AVK 4/6

¶35

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶36

applicant-accused to remain behind the bars. Needless to say, the
application deserves consideration. I am, therefore, inclined to
allow the present application. Hence the following order :

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Applicant – Kisan Bhima Dhandre shall be released on bail in

¶39

C.R.No.177 of 2016 registered with Police Station Khed, on
his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two sureties in like amount.

¶40

(ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶41

(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every month, till the Charge is framed.

¶42

AVK 5/6

¶43

BA-1869-2021.doc

¶44

(iv)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the

¶45

Sheristedar of this Court.

¶46

(v)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶47

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶48

ARTI VILAS KHATATE

¶49

Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2021.10.26 13:39:00 +0530

¶50

AVK 6/6

Kisan Bhima Dhandre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Bhima Dhandre 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

Manoj Ramesh Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Krishna Keni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Ramesh Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rambhau Santu Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhimrao Padalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra