Allowed

Suresh Shankar More v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Nov 2021BA/605/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for two applicants facing murder charges under the IPC. The Court found that prima facie evidence like an extra-judicial confession and a disclosure statement did not conclusively establish the applicants' complicity in the alleged murder and arson.

What did the court decide?

Release of both applicants on bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in like amount.

Suresh Shankar More Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2021

¶4

Suresh Shankar More…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2020

¶7

Rahul Pandurang Shinde …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶10

Mr. Shailesh Chavan a/w Shrikant Panhale, for the Applicant in BA No.
605 of 2021.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Dhaigule, for the Applicant in BA No. 1581 of 2020.

¶12

Smt. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the State-Respondent in the both the Bail
Applications.

¶13

Mr. S. B. Kharat, PC 2488, attached to Wathar, Dist-Satara Police Station
present.

¶14

 CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶15

 RESERVED ON : 25th October, 2021.
 PRONOUNCED ON : 15th November, 2021.

¶16

Rekha Patil 1/8

¶17

PC:-

¶18

.The present applications have been moved by the applicants under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R.No. 10 of 2020
registered with Wathar Police Station, District-Satara for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 435, 201, 109, 120B r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶19

2It is the case of prosecution that on 21/01/2020 the informant
had gone to Dahiwadi for some work. At about 11-30 a.m., he got a
phone call from Pusegaon Police Station informing that a Maruti Celero
Car is spotted in a burnt condition along with a half burnt dead body of
a male. The informant immediately rushed to the spot. The said car
was belonging to the sister of informant and the dead body was of his
nephew, namely, Sumit Suresh More. The FIR was accordingly
registered alleging therein that some unknown person killed Sumit
Suresh More (deceased) for unknown reasons by assaulting on his head
by means of a weapon, set ablaze his body in the car by pouring
inflammable material. Thus FIR came to be registered on 21/01/2020.

¶20

3 It is further seen from the record, however, that on 27/01/2020 his further statement came to be recorded. In that statement he stated

¶21

Rekha Patil 2/8

¶22

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶23

that on 24/01/2020 i.e. after three days of lodging of the FIR he was
again summoned by police in police station Pusegaon. When he visited
the said police station he saw deceased i.e. Sumit More was alive. When
he made enquiry with his nephew as to his burnt car of a dead body, his
nephew replied the dead body was of Tanaji Baba Awale, a neighbour
and in order to claim his ICICI insurance policy, he killed said Tanaji
Baba Awale and in order to make the evidence disappear put his dead
body in the car and set the car on fire.

¶24

4Mr.Chavan, learned Counsel for the applicant in Bail Application
No. 605 of 2021, submits that initially FIR was lodged against the
unknown person and it is only on 27/01/2020 the statement of
informant came to be recorded wherein the main accused i.e. Suresh
Shankar More allegedly made a statement before the informant in order
to claim his insurance, he killed the neighbour of informant, namely,
Tanaji Baba Awale, put his dead body in his car and set the car on
flames. According to learned Counsel, the role of applicant only came in
picture after the funeral of Tanaji Baba Awale. The reason for the same
is that and it is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant despite
knowing that it was not the dead body of his son, namely, Sumit Suresh
More but that of Tanaji Baba Awale, still he invited the father of Tanaji

¶25

Rekha Patil 3/8

¶26

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶27

Baba Awale for funeral pretending that it was the funeral of Sumit More.
According to learned Counsel, it is not a case of prosecution that he was
present on the spot when the incident in question took place or for that
matter the applicant was lastly seen in the accompany of the deceased.
There being no overwhelming evidence and the fact that the charge-
sheet has already been filed, no useful purpose will be served by keeping
him behind the bar. The applicant, therefore, be released on bail, urged
learned Counsel.

¶28

5Mr.Dahigude, learned Counsel for the applicant in Bail
Application No. 1581 of 2020, submits that the investigation papers
would show that the applicant was only accompanying with main
accused Sumit More. There is no evidence on record to show that the
applicant was also lastly seen in the accompany of the deceased. The
whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and therefore, the
applicant also deserves to be released on bail, urged learned Counsel.

¶29

6Smt. Shinde, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants and would point
out the disclosure statement made by the applicant under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act in order to prove his complicity in the offence. Learned

¶30

Rekha Patil 4/8

¶31

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶32

APP also invited my attention to the statement of prosecution witnesses,
namely, Nizamuddin Hasan Shaikh, Rohidas Ankush Chavan and Nanaso
Shivaji Katte to show that the applicant in BA No. 1581 of 2020 was very
much actively involved in the commission of the offence. Similarly
applicant in BA No. 605 of 2021 was very much aware of the fact that
the dead body was that of Tanaji Baba Awale and despite that he
suppressed the material fact in order to shield his nephew, namely, Sumit
More. Both the applications are devoid of merits and therefore, need to
be rejected, argued learned APP.

¶33

7Perused the investigation papers. Prima-facie, there may be
substance in the submission of the learned APP that the applicant in BA
No.605 of 2021 might be knowing on the date of funeral that it was the
dead body of Tanaji Baba Awale and not his son. But that circumstance
in itself would not be sufficient to prove that the informant in any
manner was responsible for the death of Tanaji Baba Awale. On the
contrary, if the statement of informant dated 27/01/2020 is read
carefully then it would be seen that in the police station the main
accused, namely, Sumit More made an extra-judicial confession that it
was he, who in order to claim his insurance policy, committed murder of
Tanaji Baba Awale and then put his body in the car and set it on fire.

¶34

Rekha Patil 5/8

¶35

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶36

This so called extra judicial confession prima-facie is not reliable for the
reason that it was made in the police station. It is also interesting to
note here that if we rely this extra-judicial confession for the sake of
argument then the main accused Sumit More nowhere disclosed that he
committed murder of Tanaji Baba Awale with the help of applicant,
namely, Rahul Pandurang Shinde (BA No. 1581 of 2020).

¶37

8Admittedly, there is disclosure statement of applicant Rahul
Pandurang Shinde (BA No. 1581 of 2020) and pursuant to that
statement he showed the place from where lighter, plastic can and petrol
were procured by him. But this circumstance alone will not fasten any
criminal liability and enable this Court to form a prima-facie opinion
that he was involved in committing the murder of Tanaji Baba Awale.

¶38

9Similarly, I have also gone through the statements of prosecution
witnesses as pointed out by the learned APP. The statement of
Nizamuddin Shaikh shows that on 19/01/2020 Rahul had been to his
shop and had purchased two lighters. The statement of Rohidas Ankush
Chavan shows that on 21/01/2020 Rahul Shinde had visited his house
along with his friend. Lastly, the statement of Nanaso Shivaji Katte
shows that on 23/01/2020 that a person visited his shop in order to get

¶39

Rekha Patil 6/8

¶40

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶41

the amount Rs.6000/- transferred to a particular account number.

¶42

10All these statements prima-facie do not in manner connect the
applicant Rahul Shinde to the alleged offence.

¶43

11Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
prosecution case, in my considered opinion, the applicants have made
out a case for bail. Hence, the following order.

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i)Applicant-Suresh Shankar More in BA No.605 of 2021 and
applicant-Rahul Pandurang Shinde in BA No. 1581 of 2020 shall be
released on bail in C.R.No. 10 of 2020 registered with Wathar Police
Station, District-Satara, on their executing P .R. bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/-each, with one or more sureties in like amount.

¶46

(ii)The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and
shall attend the trial regularly.

¶47

(iii)The observations made herein-above are prima-facie in its nature

¶48

for the purpose of deciding the bail application only. The trial Court
shall not be influenced by the observations while deciding the case on

¶49

merits.

¶50

Rekha Patil 7/8

¶51

53-BA-605-2021.odt

¶52

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

¶53

Sheristedar of this Court.

¶54

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

¶55

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶56

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶57

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2021.11.15 16:11:26 +0530

¶58

Rekha Patil 8/8

Suresh Shankar More v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Shankar More 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

Satyajeet Sunil Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas @ Vicky Ankush Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Vithoba Gadade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Rohidas Khirid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iliyas Ismail Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra