Santosh Yadav Adagale Vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

 51.BA.473.2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2022

¶5

Santosh Yadav Adagale….Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra….Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite for the Applicant.
Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 8th JULY, 2022

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The applicant, who is arraigned in C.R. No.470 of 2021
registered with Nigadi Police Station, Pune, for the offences
punishable u/s.302, 201, 323, 504, 141, 143, 147, 148 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Section 37(1)(3) r/
w.135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, has preferred this
application for bail.

¶10

2.The gravamen of indictment against the applicant and co-
accused runs as under:-

¶11

Sandhya Sampat Gaikwad - the first informant, resides at
Annabhau Sathe Vasahat, Ota Scheme, Nigadi, Pune, alongwith
her husband Sampat Gaikwad (the deceased) and three children.
On 19.09.2021, there was a quarrel between Yuvraj Adagale and
other boys from the said locality. The deceased had intervened in

¶12

 Aarti Palkar

¶13

¶14

 51.BA.473.2022.doc

¶15

the said quarrel with a view to resolve the said quarrel. Co-
accused Yuvraj and Vaibhav had an altercation with the deceased
over the deceased intervening in the said quarrel. After a while,
stones were pelted on the house of the first informant.

¶16

3.In the night intervening 19th & 20th September 2021, at about
00.45 am., the deceased went to the house of co-accused Yuvraj, to
question him as to why stones were pelted on his house. The first
informant, her mother-in-law Sushila Gaikwad and sister-in-law
Vaishali Shinde followed the deceased. While the deceased was
inquiring with the co-accused as to why stones were pelted on his
house, co-accused Yuvraj Adagale, Vaibhav @ Bichu Adagale,
Santosh Adagale – the applicant, and his cousins Omkar Balu
Adagale and Chetan Balu Adagale came thereat and started to
abuse the deceased for intervening in the said quarrel. Co-
accused, Vaibhav picked up a concrete block lying thereat and gave
a blow on the head of the deceased. The deceased sustained a
bleeding injury and fell down. Rest of the accused including the
applicant assaulted the deceased by kick and fist blows. The
applicant tried to wash out the blood of the deceased, which had
spilled on the ground. The deceased was shifted to YCM Hospital.
However, he was declared dead before admission.

¶17

4. The applicant and co-accused were arrested. Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been lodged against the applicant and the co-accused.

¶18

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶19

 Aarti Palkar

¶20

¶21

 51.BA.473.2022.doc

¶22

APP for the State.

¶23

6.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
incident had occurred at the spur of moment. The role attributed
to the applicant is that of assault to the deceased by means of fist
and kick blows. Co-accused Vaibhav gave a blow by means of a
concrete block on the head of the deceased. In the circumstances,
having regard to the fact that the investigation is complete, further
detention of the applicant is not warranted.

¶24

7.Mr. Palkar, the learned APP, countered the submissions on
behalf of the applicant. It was urged that the deceased was done
to death in prosecution of the common object of unlawful
assembly. The fact that the applicant had not assaulted the
deceased by means of a deadly weapon is, therefore, immaterial.
The first informant and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law are the
eye-witnesses. Therefore, there is a strong possibility of tampering
with evidence and threatening the witnesses.

¶25

8.Evidently on the night intervening 19th & 20th September
2021, after initial occurrence, the deceased had gone to the house
of co-accused Yuvraj to question him as to why stones were pelted
on his house. An altercation ensued. The co-accused Vaibhav
picked up a concrete block and gave a blow on the head of the
deceased. It is pertinent to note that the cause of death certificate
indicates that the deceased died on account of head injury. It is
true that the prosecution has alleged that the murder of the
deceased was committed in prosecution of the common object of

¶26

 Aarti Palkar

¶27

¶28

 51.BA.473.2022.doc

¶29

the unlawful assembly.

¶30

9.At this stage, there is prima facie material to indicate that the
presence of the applicant at the scene of occurrence. However, the
fact remains that the gravamen of indictment is that co-accused
Vaibhav picked up a concrete block lying thereat and gave a blow
on the head of the deceased. There is a general allegation that the
rest of accused, including the applicant, assaulted the deceased by
fist and kick blows.

¶31

10.It is also pertinent to note that after the initial quarrel, the
deceased had gone in front of the house of co-accused Yuvraj. It is
trite a lawful assembly may turn unlawful subsequently. However,
in the circumstances of the case, the question as to whether the
applicant was also animated by the same object of committing the
murder of the deceased warrants consideration.

¶32

11.In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am persuaded to hold
that a prima facie case for exercise of discretion in favour of the
applicant is made out, especially in the backdrop of the role
attributed to the applicant.

¶33

12.The applicant appears to have roots in society to tie him down
to his place of abode and avocation. The apprehension on the
part of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing
appropriate conditions.

¶34

 Aarti Palkar

¶35

¶36

 51.BA.473.2022.doc

¶37

13.Thus, the following order:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

(i)The application stand allowed.

¶40

(ii)The applicant – Santosh Yadav Adagale be released
on bail in CR No.470 of 2021, registered with Nigadi Police
Station, Pune, on executing a PR Bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount,
to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge.

¶41

(iii)The applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to
any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

(iv)The applicant shall attend Nigadi Police Station,
Pune on every alternate Saturday in between 10.00 am. to
1.00 pm. till flng of the charge-sheet.i

¶43

(v)The applicant shall not enter into the area falling
within the jurisdiction of Nigadi Police Station, Pune, for
the period of one year, except for attending the Police
Station as directed.

¶44

(N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶45

 Aarti Palkar

¶46

Santosh Yadav Adagale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav Adagale v. 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

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raju @ Riyaj Gaus Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Baban Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Ashutosh Ananta Pingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Naresh Bidlan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar Vs State of Maharashtra