Partly allowed

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2021BA/276/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court passed a common order on five bail applications arising from the same investigation. It granted regular bail to two arrested accused who played a lesser role and rejected anticipatory bail applications for three other accused involved in serious allegations against police officers.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to Prafulla Kharade and Deepak Mahadik on furnishing bond; anticipatory bail rejected for Santosh Tribhuvan, Ramkishan Gaikwad, and Pranit Pedhavi.

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

[1] ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.783 OF 2021

¶6

1. Santosh Balu Tribhuvan, &

¶7

2. Ramkishan Nagrao Gaikwad.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra

¶8

…. Applicants

¶9

…. Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

[2] ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2021
Pranit Gajanan Pedhavi …. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶12

….. Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

[3] CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2021

¶15

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶16

WITH

¶17

[4] CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1510 OF 2020

¶18

Deepak Tukaram Mahadik .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶19

1 of 10

¶20

Deshmane(PS)

¶21

 : 2 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶22

Smt. Tamanna I. Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicants in ABA/
783/2021 and BA/1510/2020.

¶23

Mr. Gaurav Parkar, Advocate for the Applicant in
ABA/541/2021.

¶24

Mr. Sujay H. Gangal, Advocate for the Applicant in
BA/276/2021.

¶25

Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶26

CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶27

DATE:18th MARCH, 2021

¶28

P.C. :

¶29

1.In all these matters a common order is passed

¶30

today because they arise out of the same investigation and the

¶31

same offence. For the sake of convenience, all the Applicants
are referred to by their names in this order.

¶32

2.Criminal Bail Application No.276/2021 is filed by
Prafulla Kharade, Criminal Bail Application No.1510/2020 is
filed by Deepak Mahadik, Anticipatory Bail Application
No.783/2021 is filed by Santosh Tribhuvan & Ramkishan
Gaikwad, and Anticipatory Bail Application No.541/2021 is
filed by Pranit Pedhavi.

¶33

2 of 10

¶34

 : 3 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶35

3.The Applicant-Deepak Mahadik was arrested on

¶36

14.7.2020 and the Applicant-Prafulla Kharade was arrested on
18.7.2020 and since they they are in custody. The charge-
sheet is already filed against these two and insofar as they are
concerned, the investigation is over. They are seeking bail in
connection with C.R. No.46/2020 registered at Kolad Police
Station, Raigad.

¶37

4.In Anticipatory Bail Applications, the Applicants-
Santosh Tribhuvan, Ramkishan Gaikwad and Pranit Pedhavi
are attached to Roha Police Station. The Applicants are
seeking relief of anticipatory bail in their respective
Applications in respect of C.R. No.46/2020 registered at Kolad
Police Station, District-Raigad, dated 14.7.2020, under
Sections 420, 384, 364-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

¶38

5.The FIR is lodged by one Shailesh Sakpal. His
allegations unfold through his FIR lodged on 14.7.2020 and
through his supplementary statement dated 20.7.2020.
According to him, his friend Ganesh More told him that his

¶39

3 of 10

¶40

 : 4 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶41

friend Applicant-Prafulla Kharade had 20 kg gold biscuits and
he was selling that gold at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per tola.
They decided to buy the gold. They contacted him. They met
Prafulla Kharade at Kolad. The Applicant-Prafulla took
Ganesh to Mangaon. He had taken Rs.2 Lakhs given by the
informant and his friend Ganesh, but, he returned with 20
grams gold. The informant wanted 50 grams of gold, and he
refused to accept 20 gms gold. The Applicant-Praafulla
Kharade then came back with the Applicant-Deepak Mahadik,
who in turn told that they knew one Mahesh at Thane who
would give them 30 grams of gold. He contacted Mahesh on
mobile phone. Some conversation took place. The informant
was given a telephone number. Then the informant took his
20 grams of gold and Rs.1,20,000/- and went to Thane.
There he tried to contact the aforementioned Mahesh, but, he
could not be contacted. On 3.7.2020 as per the directions of
the Applicant-Prafulla Kharade they went to Kolad. That time,
the Applicant-Prafulla Kharade took away Rs.60,000/- and 20
grams of gold. In the meantime, one person wearing rain-coat

¶42

4 of 10

¶43

 : 5 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶44

came there and caught the Applicant Prafulla Kharade. He
was accompanied by one more such person. They
represented to the informant that they were police officers
and Prafulla Kharade had 7 to 8 offences against him. They
told the informant that if they wanted protection from arrest
he would have to pay Rs.1 Lakh. In the supplementary
statement, he has further stated that the informant was forced
to sit in an “i-20” vehicle. The informant’s friend Ganesh was
made to sit in a Duster vehicle. All of them were taken to a
secluded spot where the persons, who made a representation
that they were police officers, took away their belongings and
amounts and after some time they were taken outside Roha
police station. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged and
supplementary statement was given by the Applicant.

¶45

6.Heard Smt. Tamanna Shaikh, learned Counsel
Advocate for the Applicants-Santosh Tribhuvan, Ramkishan
Gaikwad and Deepak Mahadik, Shri Gaurav Parkar, learned
Counsel for the Applicant-Pranit Pedhavi, Shri Sujay Gangal,
learned Counsel for the Applicant-Prafulla Kharade and Shri

¶46

5 of 10

¶47

 : 6 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶48

S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶49

7.Learned Counsel for the Applicant-Pranit Pedhavi
submitted that he was actually on duty on that day and,
therefore, he being present on the spot will not show that he
has taken part in commission of the offence.

¶50

8.Learned Counsel for the Applicants Santosh
Tribhuvan and Ramkishan Gaikwad submitted that the
identity of the police officer is not established and, therefore,
there is nothing to connect these Applicants with the present
crime.

¶51

9.Learned Counsel for the Applicant-Deepak

¶52

Mahadik submitted that he is already arrested on 14.7.2020
and in the supplementary statement there is no reference to
this Deepak. Therefore, sufficient doubt is created about his
presence.

¶53

10.Learned Counsel for the Appilcant-Prafulla

¶54

Kharade submitted that as can be seen from the entire
narration, the main allegations are against the police officers.

¶55

6 of 10

¶56

 : 7 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶57

The Applicant-Prafulla Kharade had not abducted the
informant and, therefore, the allegations against him are of
much lesser gravity.

¶58

11.Learned A.P.P. opposed all these Applications. He
produced the statement given by the Applicant-Deepak
Mahadik and the Applicant-Prafulla Kharade. Of course, these
statements may not be admissible, but, for the purpose of
consideration of anticipatory bail they can be looked into to
find whether the investigating agency has sufficient material
against the Applicants for effecting their arrest.

¶59

12.I have considered all these submissions. As far as
the Applicants-Deepak Mahadik and Prafulla Kharade are
concerned, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the
Applicant-Prafulla, he had not abducted the informant. He
had actually returned some part of gold. Therefore, prima
facie, there is scope to believe that he has played a lesser role.
He had induced the informant to part with his money and to
come to Kolad. His role undoubtedly is mentioned by the
informant, but, considering the fact that the charge-sheet is

¶60

7 of 10

¶61

 : 8 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶62

already filed against him, no purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars till the entire duration of trial. The
main allegation for commission of offence under Section 364-
A of IPC is not attracted against him. Therefore, he can be
granted bail.

¶63

13.As far as the Applicant-Deepak Mahadik is
concerned, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for him
that his name is not mentioned in the supplementary
statement. This discrepancy has remained unexplained, but,
the FIR does mention his role. But he has come on the scene
subsequently after Prafulla Kharade had brought the
informant at Kolad. The person named as “Mahesh” was a
fictitious person and that number was given by other accused.
However, apart from that, he has not taken further part in the
offence. There is nothing to show that apart from the fact
that cash of Rs.25,000/- each was recovered from the
Applicants-Deepak Mahadik & Prafulla Kharade, they had
benefitted substantially. Therefore, even Deepak Mahadik’s
case can be considered for grant of bail.

¶64

8 of 10

¶65

 : 9 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶66

14.As far as Anticipatory Bail Applications are
concerned, the matter is quite serious. All these Applicants-
Santosh Tribhuvan, Ramkishan Gaikwad and Pranit Pedhavi
are attached to Roha police station. The statements of the
Applicants-Deepak Mahadik and Prafulla Kharade show that
all three police officers have played active role in the entire
offence. The informant was taken away forcibly in a car. His
friend was also taken in a different car. They were taken to a
secluded place. There their cash and other articles were taken
away. These are serious allegations against the police officers
and for that purpose their custodial interrogation is necessary.
In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted in the
anticipatory bail applications.

¶67

15.Hence, the following order :

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) Bail Application No.276/2021 is allowed. In connection

¶70

with C.R. No.46/2020 registered with Kolad Police
Station, District-Raigad, the Applicant-Prafulla

¶71

9 of 10

¶72

 : 10 : 27-29.ABA-783-541-21-BA-276-21-1510-20.odt

¶73

Prabhakar Kharade is directed to be released on bail on
his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties
in the like amount.

¶74

(ii) Bail Application No.1510/2020 is allowed. In connection
with C.R. No.46/2020 registered with Kolad Police
Station, District-Raigad, the Applicant-Deepak Tukaram
Mahadik is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶75

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.20 15:12:39 +0530

¶76

(iii) Anticipatory Bail Applications No.783/2021 & 541/2021
in respect of Applicants-Santosh Tribhuvan, Ramkishan
Gaikwad and Pranit Pedhavi stand rejected.

¶77

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶78

Deshmane (PS)

¶79

10 of 10

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapaji Dhakal Khanjode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Vishnu Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhav Trimbak Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwan Lavhersingh Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vimal Namdeo Kakde Vs the Senior Inspector of Police

Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra