Single judge granted regular bail to two applicants accused of robbery in a case involving recovery of money and a suspected weapon, citing lack of proper identification and long custody.
Applicants directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
02-BA-78-20.odt
1 / 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2020
1. Pravin Sudam Nikalje 2. Rahul Gopal Vagri .... Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
…....
None present for Applicant.Mr.Ameet A. Palkar, APP for the State/Respondent.CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 17th JULY, 2021
(Through video conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicants are seeking regular bail in connection
with C.R.No.538/2019 registered with Goregaon Police Station,dated 25/10/2019, under sections 394 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The charge-sheet is already filed on 25/10/2019
and and since then they are in custody. Investigation is over.
2. Nobody appears for the Applicant. Therefore I am
deciding this application with the assistance of learned APP. Ihave perused the charge-sheet annexed to this application.
Nesarikar
2 / 5 02-BA-78-20.odt
3. The FIR is lodged by one Islam Shaikh on 25/10/2019.
He has stated that he had gone to attend his work on
24/10/2019 in the night. After supplying the goods by his
tempo, he parked his tempo near fish market, Goregaon on
25/10/2019 at 03.30 a.m. While he was walking towards his
house, two unknown persons came on a scooty. They stopped
him on the pretext of asking for Match box. Both of them got
down. They forcibly took away Rs.3,000/- which he was
carrying. When he opposed, one of them picked up a paver
block lying on the road and gave a blow on his head. The
informant raised shouts. However, both of them went away. On
this basis, FIR is lodged.
4. Heard Mr.Ameet Palkar, learned APP for the State. He
submitted that there is sufficient material against the present
Applicants in the charge-sheet in the form of recovery, but no
identification parade is held.
3 / 5 02-BA-78-20.odt
5. I have perused the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet
contains recovery pachanama dated 26/10/2019, wherein the
Applicant Pravin Nikalje gave statement showing his willingness
to point out the place where he had kept the amount and the
scooty. Pursuant to that statement, Rs.2,000/- were recovered
from the pant kept in his house. The scooty was parked behind
his house and the paver block used in the offence was lying on a
road near bus stop.
6. There is another statement of one Akash Raju Mane.
He had seen the incident. In the incident itself he had
questioned the accused. His case is that he confronted one of the
offenders and asked him about the informant’s mobile phone.
He in fact searched his person and took out mobile from his pant
pocket and returned it to the informant. After that both of
offenders came back after some time with iron rod and they
were asking for the informant. His statement further mentions
that police pointed out those two offenders to this witness Akash
and he had identified both of them. The injury certificate of
4 / 5 02-BA-78-20.odt
informant shows that he had suffered one simple injury on his
right temporal region. Apart from this circumstance, there is
nothing in the charge-sheet.
7. As far as recovery is concerned, finding of Rs.2,000/- in
the Applicant’s house is hardly incriminating. Paver block was
found on the road. Therefore that circumstance is also not
incriminating. If the Applicant had a scooty, that by itself is not
an incriminating circumstance.
8. As far as statement of witness Akash Mane is
concerned, his story is not reflected in the informant’s case. Even
otherwise his statement shows that the offender had not fought
with this witness. They had allowed him to search them.
Secondly these offenders were shown to this witness by the
police. This can hardly be treated as proper identification. The
Applicants on the basis of statement this witness are in custody
since 26/10/2019. The trial is not likely to commence soon
enough. Considering this doubtful piece of evidence and also
02-BA-78-20.odt
5 / 5
taking into consideration, long detention of the Applicants in
custody during pendency of their trial, I am inclined to grant
bail to both the Applicants.
9. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
(i)In connection with C.R.No.538/2019
registered with Goregaon Police Station, the
Applicants are directed to be released on
bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) each, with one or two sureties each,
in the like amount.
(ii)Since nobody appeared for the Applicants,
office to intimate this order to the
Applicants through Jail Superintendent,
with the help of the Investigating Officer.
(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicants in a case involving robbery under sections 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pravin Sudam Nikalje
Rahul Gopal Vagri
State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court