Dismissed

Jay @ Balu Ganesh Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2022BA/259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench considered two bail applications arising from the same offence involving kidnapping, murder, and disposal of the body of a driver. Court noted prima facie case and accuseds criminal background.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application Nos. 249 of 2022 and 259 of 2022 are rejected.

What the court decided

Jay @ Balu Ganesh Shelke Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

{1} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

909 BAIL APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2022

¶4

AKASH BALASAHEB MASKE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

WITH

¶8

BAIL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2022

¶9

JAY @ BALU GANESH SHELKE VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶11

Advocate for Applicant : Shri Dhananjay M. Shinde APP for Respondent : Shri A.V.Deshmukh

¶12

CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

¶13

DATE: 6^th April, 2022

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

Both these applications are disposed of by common order as they arise out of the same ofence.

¶16

Accused No.1 has preferred Bail Application No.249 of 2022 and accused No.2 has preferred Bail Application No.259 of 2022.

¶17

Case of the prosecution in brief is that both the applicants and accused No.3 were lodged in Parbhani jail in separate three crimes for the ofence under Sections 302, 376, 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered with diferent Police Stations. They

¶18

{2} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶19

became friends. They hatched a criminal conspiracy of stealing four wheeler vehicles and sale them in the market and raise money.

¶20

After their release, on 11^th August, 2021 at about 12:00 to 12:30, they went to Zilla Parishad ground at Hingoli where the Drivers usually park their vehicles for giving them on hire.

¶21

Both the applicants and accused No.3 by the name of Shivaji Ganpat Dashrathe asked deceased Yusuf Naurangabadi, father of the informant, as to whether he would take both the applicants and accused No.3 to Parbhani in Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.MH-18 BC-4792. Deceased Yusuf was driver on the vehicle and this vehicle was owned by Shaikh Sameer Shaikh Mahemood. After negotiating hire amount with deceased Yusuf, both the applicants and accused No.3 boarded into the vehicle at Hingoli. Thereafter, the Scorpio vehicle proceeded towards Parbhani.

¶22

When the Scorpio was a little ahead of Gangakhed, both the applicants and accused No.3 tied all the limbs of driver Yusuf with rope and shifted him on the backside of the Scorpio. One of the three accused drove Scorpio on Ausa to Latur road and on

¶23

{3} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶24

the way they killed deceased Yusuf by strangulation with intent to destroy evidence of crime. All the three accused threw the dead body of deceased Yusuf near Chalburga Pati to Chalburga road within the vicinity of Chalburga village, Tq.Ausa, District Latur. Dead body was threw in the feld land Gut No.113 of the Gangubai Trimbak Jadhav. On 11^th August 2021 during night hours, the family members of deceased Yusuf contacted him. Deceased Yusuf talked to them at about 06:00 p.m. but after 08:30 p.m. his mobile was switched of.

¶25

On the next morning, Scorpio vehicle was found near Sahyadri Dhaba within the vicinity of Bembli Police Station by Dhaba owner Udhav Kalsule. Both the applicants and accused No.3 were there in the vehicle at that time. Dhabha owner Udhav Kalsule grew suspicious because of the movements of the applicants and accused No.3. Therefore, he called Vitthal Anandrao Chaudhari, Police Head Constable of Bembli Police Station. Vitthal Anandrao Chaudhari came there and interrogated the applicants and accused No.3. He took photos of all the three accused in his mobile. He gave a call to Shaikh Sameer, the owner of the Scorpio vehicle. Shaikh Sameer disclosed that his vehicle had gone to Parbhani and he did not know as to how vehicle was found at Ausa. Police Head

¶26

{4} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶27

constable Vitthal Chaudhari asked Udhav Kalsule, Dhabha owner to keep accused Nos.1 to 3 in his custody until his arrival as he was busy in the investigation of one suicide case. However, applicants and accused No.3 ran away on the pretext of being hungry.

¶28

Since whereabouts of deceased Yusuf Naurangabadi were not traced, informant, the son of deceased Yusuf, lodged missing report with Hingoli City Police Station. On 18^th August, 2021, accused No.3 was arrested, who disclosed as to how crime was committed. On the basis of his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, applicants came to be arrested. During investigation, it transpired that rope was recovered from applicant in Bail Application No.259 of 2022. Call Details Record (CDR) showed location of applicant in Bail Application No.249 of 2022 near the Scorpio vehicle. Dead body was traced at the instance of accused No.3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be fled.

¶29

During investigation, identifcation parade was conducted in which, a Driver at the place where the vehicles are parked, identifed all the three accused.

¶30

{5} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶31

Heard Shri D.M.Shinde, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri A.V.Deshmukh, learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶32

Shri Shinde, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The only evidence against applicant in Bail Application No.249 of 2022 is that his location was traced near Scorpio vehicle in view of the CDR record. So also, the only evidence against applicant in Bail Application No.259 of 2022 is that the rope was recovered from this applicant. He submits that except this evidence, prosecution could not collect any evidence to show the involvement of the applicants. He further submits that Police Head Constable Vitthal Chaudhari had interrogated the applicants and accused No.3 and he had clicked the photographs of accused Nos.1 to 3. However, these photographs are not part of the charge-sheet. He submits that the applicants will not fee from justice and they will be available for trial. He submits that when the vehicle was found, accused Nos.1 to 3 were not there. Panchanama of abandoned vehicle was prepared. Identifcation parade was held after a period of three months. He submits that in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, identifcation parade ought to have been held as early as possible. The identifcation parade held after three months is of no signifcance. He,

¶33

{6} BA 249 OF 2022 & ANR

¶34

therefore, prayed for releasing the applicants on bail.

¶35

Shri Deshmukh, learned APP for the respondent submits that mere delay in holding identifcation parade cannot enure to the beneft of the applicants. He submits that in the identifcation parade, one of the Drivers at the parking place, identifed accused 1 to 3. He submits that he had seen accused 1 to 3 sitting in the Scorpio vehicle of deceased Yusuf. He submits that considering the seriousness of the ofence, applicants may not be released on bail.

¶36

Admittedly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are facing trial in another crime registered with diferent Police Stations under Sections 302, 376, 302 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.

¶37

Ramjan Kasam Pyarewale has identifed accused Nos.1 to 3 in identifcation parade. His statement shows that these three accused had hired vehicle Scorpio of deceased Yusuf and rent was fxed at Rs.3,000/-. Statement of Shaikh Kalim Shaikh Chand also shows that three unknown persons hired Scorpio vehicle of deceased Yusuf. All the three applicants have been identifed in identifcation parade. Thus, this makes it clear that both the applicants and accused No.3 Shivaji Ganpat Dashrathe

¶38

had hired the vehicle of Yusuf.

¶39

On the arrest of accused No.3 - Shivaji Ganpat Dashrathe, at his instance, dead body of deceased Yusuf was recovered. During his interrogation, it transpired that applicants and accused No.3 committed murder of deceased Yusuf by strangulation and threw his dead body in a feld at Chalburga village. The evidence collected by the prosecution shows that when the deceased Yusuf was murdered, both the applicants and accused No.3 were together. Therefore, there is a prima-facie case against the applicants. In this view of the matter and especially considering their criminal background, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Hence, the order :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Bail Application Nos.249 of 2022 and 259 of 2022 are rejected.

¶42

ii) It is clarifed that the observations made in this order are restricted to the decision of these applications only and the trial Court shall not get infuenced by the same and can come to its independent conclusion during trial.

¶43

( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE

¶44

SPT

Jay @ Balu Ganesh Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jay @ Balu Ganesh Shelke 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

Mukesh Dattatraya Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anuj Sushant Pavnekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suhas Madhukarrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dilip Aabasaheb Goyakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Balasaheb Maske Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gorakhnath Jagannath Mangate Vs the State of Maharashtra