Allowed

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Oct 2021BA/2746/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder and kidnapping case. The court noted defects in the test identification parade and the unclear cause of death, finding no other incriminating circumstances against the applicant at the time of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing P.Bond in Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2746 OF 2021

¶5

SACHIN @ KANCHYA ROHIDAS CHAVAN

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Smt.Shubhangi Parulekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.Ameet A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶12

 RESERVED ON : 25th OCTOBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 28th OCTOBER 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1The present application has been moved by the

¶15

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶16

Crime No.502 of 2018 registered with Police Station Nigdi, for

¶17

offences punishable under Section 302, 364, 201 read with 34 of

¶18

the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶19

AVK 1/6

¶20

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶21

2The informant is brother of Salman Sheikh (since
deceased). According to the prosecution, Salman had left his
house on 19th July 2018 at about 12.00 p.m. and did not return
home. Therefore, on 21st July 2018 the informant gave a
complaint about his missing to Yamunanagar Police Station. At
the same time, Sonali Wakade @ Max (since deceased) also went
missing and therefore, her relatives also lodged a complaint. It is
further seen from the First Information Report (FIR) that when
the informant and others were searching for Salman, his cousin
Mohsin Shaikh told him that at about 9.00 p.m. he had seen both
of them going with three to four persons from Azad Chowk.
According to the prosecution, accused Ravi Walmiki, Vishal
Walmiki, Gotya @ Nagesh Chavan were the persons who were
named by Mohsin Shaikh. Accordingly, FIR came to be lodged
against these accused and other 2/3 unknown persons. The dead
body of Salman Shaikh was found on 23rd July 2018 whereas that
of Sonali Wakade was found on 22nd July 2018.

¶22

AVK 2/6

¶23

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶24

3Smt.Shubhangi Parulekar, learned counsel for the
applicant, submits that the accused namely Prashant Shashikant
Salvi who was seen in the company of the deceased has been
enlarged on bail by this Court on 8th March 2021. The role of the
present applicant is lesser that that of Prashant Salvi. Moreover,
the name of the present applicant is nowhere taken by any of the
witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that the cause of
death could not be ascertained as the bodies were highly
decomposed. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the Test
Identification Parade so conducted is also highly defective. For all
these reasons and on the ground of parity, the applicant deserves
to be released on bail.

¶25

4As against above, the learned APP does not dispute
the above factual position which has been advanced in the form
of submission by the learned counsel for the applicant.
According to the learned APP appropriate order may be passed.

¶26

AVK 3/6

¶27

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶28

5I have gone through the record. First of all, it may be
noted that the cause of death of deceased Salman could not be
ascertained as the dead body was highly decomposed. Similarly,
the cause of death in respect of Sonali Wakade was reserved till
arrival of the Chemical Analyser’s Report. As on the date of
hearing arguments, the cause of death of either of the deceased
was not before me.

¶29

6 I have also gone through the Memorandum of Test Identification Parade. On perusal of the same, it appears that the present applicant was identified by prosecution witness Kavita Vikram Gaikwad on 31^st August 2018. Interestingly, I may note that her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded on 29^th July 2018. It means after more than one month she was asked to participate in the Test Identification Parade. According to the prosecution, the present applicant was duly identified by her in the said Test Identification Parade. What I am concerned with is her conduct as reflected AVK 4/6

¶30

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶31

from her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on
29th July 2018. From the reading of her statement it would be
seen that she was acquainted only with accused Vishal Walmiki
and further that on 19th July 2018 said accused Vishal Walmiki
along with his four to five companions had gone in an
autorickshaw along with the deceased Sonali and Salman. She
nowhere says in her statement that either she was knowing the
present applicant or her statement does not show the features,
colour, height etc. of the persons noted by her, who were
allegedly along with the accused Vishal Walmiki. This being so
and the fact that the Test Identification Parade took place almost
after more than one and half month of the date of the incident, I
have my own doubts as to whether she would have been in a
position to identify the present applicant. I am, therefore, in
agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant that the
Test Identification Parade appears to be not reliable vis-a-vis the
present applicant and that too at the instance of the prosecution
witness Kavita Gaikwad.

¶32

AVK 5/6

¶33

BA-2746-2021.doc

¶34

7Having regard to the above discussion and the fact
that no other incriminating circumstance in the nature of
recovery or other incriminating factors is forming a part of the
record against the applicant, the applicant has made out a case
for consideration, more so, when the investigation is already over

¶35

and the charge-sheet is filed. Hence the following order :

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Applicant – Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan shall be released on bail in Crime No.502 of 2018 registered with Police Station Nigdi, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶38

(ii)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

¶39

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

¶40

AVK 6/6

¶41

ARTI VILAS KHATATE Digitally signed byARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2021.10.28 12:29:15 +0530

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan 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

Rambhau Santu Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhimrao Padalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Nana Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Laxman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Parashuram Sansare Vs the State of Maharashtra