Allowed

Shamrao Vithal Tevare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Nov 2021BA/2974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considers the release of an applicant facing charges for extortion, attempted extortion, theft, and organized crime. The court notes that 8 witnesses turned hostile and the sanctioning authority is absconding. Finding no cogent evidence against the applicant, the court grants bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions including regular appearance and not leaving jurisdiction.

Shamrao Vithal Tevare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2974 OF 2021

¶5

SHAMRAO VITHAL TEVARE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr.Kuldeep Patil i/b. Ms.Saili Dhuru, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶12

 RESERVED ON : 17th NOVEMBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th NOVEMBER 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.I-158 of 2018 registered with Police Station Bhuinj,

¶17

Satara, for offences punishable under Section 384, 385, 386, 364

¶18

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section

¶19

AVK 1/6

¶20

Digitally ARTIVILASKHATATE signed byARTI VILASKHATATEDate:2021.11.26 13:26:55 +0530

¶21

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶22

3(25) of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of
the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act).

¶23

2The offence in question took place between 12th
December 2017 to 3rd May 2018. According to prosecution in the
month of December 2017 an online tender for scrap material was
called out by Kisanvir Co-op. Sugar Factory, Bhuinj. The
informant, who is a scrap merchant, along with his business
partners visited the place to see the scrap material. It is alleged
that, at that time, informant got acquainted with the applicant
and other co-accused, who threatened the informant not to file
the tender without their permission and demanded a ransom
amount of Rs.10 lac upon which the informant paid an amount
of Rs.2 lac.

¶24

3 The prosecution further alleges that the applicant and the co-accused continued to threaten the informant and extorted moneys from him on several occasions and as the informant feared for his life and property, he kept on fulfilling the demands AVK 2/6

¶25

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶26

made by the applicant and the co-accused. In all, the informant
has given Rs.38 lacs till now.

¶27

4Lastly, the prosecution contends that when informant

¶28

came to know that the co-accused namely Dattatray @ Datta
Jadhav who was the gang leader has been arrested by the police
on 4th May 2018, he immediately filed the First Information
Report (FIR) in question.

¶29

5Mr.Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the applicant,

¶30

submits that the applicant is in jail since more than three years.
The trial has already commenced. Till now seventeen witnesses
have been examined. However, all the material witnesses have
turned hostile except the police witnesses. According to the
learned counsel, the last witness who is the Sanctioning
Authority, is remained to be examined but he has been declared
absconding and there are no immediate chances of completion of
trial. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.

¶31

AVK 3/6

¶32

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶33

6The learned counsel has also given the case details
from which it appears that eight witnesses have turned hostile
whereas the remaining witnesses are police officers who have not
taken the name of applicant and the only remaining witness is
the Sanctioning authority.

¶34

7As against above, Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, fairly

¶35

admits that all the prosecution witnesses, except police witnesses,
have turned hostile. Sanctioning authority did appear through
video conferencing once but his evidence could not be
completed. In such circumstances, he submits that appropriate
order may be passed.

¶36

8 I have carefully gone through the case details furnished today by the learned counsel for the applicant. It appears that prosecution witnesses namely Omveer Ajmera, Iqbal Sayyad Taleeb, Mohommad @ Mazahar Harun Khan, Amol @ Gorakh Baban Bandgar, Aarif Shagir Patel, Ramesh Maruti Kulawade, Shaikh Mohommad Juber and Bipin Ramkrushna AVK 4/6

¶37

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶38

Gupta have turned hostile. The remaining witnesses from Serial
Nos.9 to 16 are police witnesses who have not taken the name of
applicant in any manner indicating even his alleged involvement
in the crime. PW17 has also been examined who is the
Investigating Officer. However, PW18 i.e. the last witness and
Sanctioning authority is admittedly declared absconding by the
competent Court. As per the submissions of learned counsel for
the applicant, this is a fact which is not disputed by the learned
APP.

¶39

9Thus, there being no cogent and convincing evidence,
there is no alternative but to release the applicant on bail. Hence
I pass the following order :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i)Applicant – Shamrao Vithal Tevare shall be released on bail
in Crime No.I-158 of 2018 registered with Police Station
Bhuinj, Satara, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶42

AVK 5/6

¶43

BA-2974-2021.doc

¶44

(ii)The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶45

(iii)The applicant shall attend the Court proceedings regularly.

¶46

(iv)The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without prior permission of the Court.

¶47

(iv)Bail before the trial Court.

¶48

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

¶49

(vi)It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶50

(vii)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands disposed off accordingly.

¶51

AVK 6/6

Shamrao Vithal Tevare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamrao Vithal Tevare 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

Ajay Maruti Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Bhaurao Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Nimba Memane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Nana Waghapure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Amrut Mohite Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.