Allowed

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

Bombay HC26 Nov 2021BA/3049/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed releasing the applicant on probation. The High Court noted significant inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements regarding the number of assailants and the presence of the informant at the crime scene, despite the serious charges of murder and rioting.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Atul Amrut Mohite Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3049 OF 2021

¶5

ATUL AMRUT MOHITE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.)...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr.Owais T. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM: V. G. BISHT, J.

¶11

 RESERVED ON : 17th NOVEMBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th NOVEMBER 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1The present application has been moved by the

¶14

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶15

Crime No.121 of 2016 registered with Police Station Dighi, Pune,

¶16

for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 302,

¶17

363, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Section 4(25) of

¶18

AVK 1/9

¶19

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

¶20

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶21

the Arms Act and under Section 37(1) read with 135 of Maharashtra

¶22

Police Act.

¶23

2The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 15th July
2016, at about 3.30 a.m., Shubham Fuge, informant and son of
Dattatraya (deceased for short) lodged report contending that on
14th July 2016 a phone call was received by him from applicant
requesting him to bring his father i.e. the deceased for the
birthday of one of his friend at Dighi. At about 11.30 p.m.,
while the informant along with his friend, namely, Rohan
Panchal, was proceeding towards Dighi, the informant saw his
father being assaulted by the applicant in an open space with a
huge stone on the head and further saw accused Babu Walke
assaulting his father with a stone. It is further alleged that
Babu Walke was accompanied by his two nephews – one who
was armed with sattur was assaulting the deceased and the other
person was armed with sword and he was assaulting the deceased
with a sword. It is further alleged that accused Shailesh was
assaulting the deceased with fist and kick blows and Prem
Dholpuria was assaulting the deceased with some deadly

¶24

AVK 2/9

¶25

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶26

weapon. Similarly, accsued Babu Walke had assaulted with a
chopper and all of them were accompanied by another two
persons. All the assailants then fled from the spot.

¶27

3Mr.Jahagirdar, learned counsel for the applicant,
submits that seven accused have already been released on bail.
One of them is accused Sushant. The role of said accused
Sushant and that of the applicant is similar. The learned counsel
also invited my attention to the statement of Mahesh
Suryawanshi, who according to him, is a chance witness and his
statement is not consistent with the statement of the informant.
Thus, for all these reasons, the applicant deserves to be released
on bail, argued learned counsel.

¶28

4Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, submits that the applicant on

¶29

the date of incident was on inimical terms with the deceased. There is direct evidence in the form of statement of witness, namely, Mahesh Suryawanshi, who had seen the applicant and other accused assaulting the deceased, apart from the statement AVK 3/9

¶30

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶31

of informant. Offence being serious one, the application deserves
to be rejected.

¶32

5Perused the investigation papers including the First
Information Report (FIR), statement of informant, his friend
Rohan Panchal and the material witness Mahesh Suryawanshi,
whose statement is pressed into service by the learned APP.

¶33

6According to the informant there were 9 assailants.

¶34

He also claims to have seen the incident involving the applicant and other accused. It may not be out of place to mention here that the statement of informant and his friend Rohan Panchal’s statement were recorded immediately after the incident whereas the statement of Mahesh Suryawanshi was recorded on the next day. There is doubt in respect of presence of the informant and his friend at the place of incident, for which the reasons, I would be discussing later on. Before that, I may note from the statement of Mahesh Suryawanshi that there were four assailants. According to this witness, applicant and Shaukat AVK 4/9

¶35

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶36

Attar were assaulting the deceased by means of stones. Of them,
Shaukat Attar is already released on bail by the trial Court.
Interestingly, informant or for that matter his friend Rohan do
not say anything about accused Shaukat Attar.

¶37

7Now there is two sets of statement. While

¶38

informant’s statement shows that there were nine assailants, the
statement of Mahesh Suryawanshi, who was passing through the
place of incident and thus a chance witness, shows that there
were only four assailants. Next is the statement of wife of
deceased, who after having received the information of the
incident, had rushed along with her daughter Pratiksha Shivaji
Borade and her son-in-law Shivaji Borade. There is also
statement of Pratiksha Shivaji Borade on record. Interestingly,
statement of both these witnesses nowhere show the presence of
Rohan Panchal at the place of incident, although it is claimed by
the informant that he was with him.

¶39

AVK 5/9

¶40

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶41

8Coming to the important aspect of the case that is
whether the informant was present at the place of occurrence or
not, I may point out certain observations from the order of this
Court (Coram : Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav) passed on 22nd January
2018 whereby accused Prem @ Kakka @ Pramod Santaram
Dholpuriya was released on bail. Following are the
observations :

¶42

“9Upon perusal of the papers of
investigation, more particularly the statement of
the sister of the complainant and the mother of the
complainant as well as the brother-in-law who had
reached first in point of time, it is clear that when
they reached the spot, they had not seen Rohan
Panchal along with the present applicants and
Shubham was alone who was crying. Therefore,
respective counsel submit that Rohan Panchal
happens to be a got up witness only to corroborate
the version of the complainant. It is also clear from
the papers of investigation that there was no
electricity supply in Bharatmata Nagar area at the
relevant time. The call details record would clearly
indicate that the applicant Dholpuriya was not in

¶43

AVK 6/9

¶44

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶45

Dighi area at the relevant time nay it is relevant to
observe that the call details record of the
complainant would also indicate that he was not in
Bharatmata Nagar between 11 to 11.30 p.m. It is
further pertinent to note that the investigating
agency has not placed on record the station diary
to show that at what time they had received the
phone call from the cellphone of the complainant.
There are eye-witnesses who would also
substantiate the contentions of the present
applicant to the extent that the deceased was
assaulted by four persons named by Mahesh
Suryawanshi. Column No.17 shows that there are
four injuries on the person of deceased. The post-
mortem report would show that there are chop
wounds on right tempero-parietal occipital area
and on the scalp there are contused lacerated
woulds and multiple contused abrasions. The cause
of death is head injury. Upon considering the
papers of investigation, more particularly the
statement of Mahesh Suryawanshi and the other
family members of the deceased, it appears that the
incident has been blown out of proportion by the
complainant and Rohan Panchal.”

¶46

AVK 7/9

¶47

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶48

9Similarly, the learned trial Court while admitting
accused Shaukat Attar on bail observed at paragraph 5 that CDR
of the informant shows that he was not in Bharatmata Nagar in
between 11 to 11.30 p.m. on the date of the incident. It is
relevant to note here that the incident had taken place in
Bharatmata Nagar area at about 11.00 p.m.

¶49

10From the above what emerges is that there is no
consistency between the statements of prosecution witnesses.
Even the presence of informant and his friend Rohan Panchal is
doubtful. Taking into consideration the material on record and
the aforesaid lacunae as noted, I am of the opinion that applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following
order :

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Applicant – Atul Amrut Mohite shall be released on bail in Crime No.121 of 2016 registered with Police Station Dighi, Pune, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶52

AVK 8/9

¶53

BA-3049-2021.doc

¶54

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

¶55

(iii)The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of

¶56

Bharatmata Nagar, Dighi, Pune, till conclusion of the trial.

¶57

(iv)Bail before the trial Court.

¶58

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

¶59

(vi)It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima

¶60

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.

¶61

(vii)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands

¶62

disposed off accordingly.

¶63

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶64

AVK 9/9

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Shamrao Vithal Tevare Vs the State of Maharashtra