Allowed

Ankush Vasant Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2022BA/632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considered the entitlement of the applicant accused of beating a labourer to death with a stick and stone. The court acknowledged the prima facie material but noted the weapons were not deadly. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding residence, appearance, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of residence, appearance, and non-interference.

Ankush Vasant Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed SWAROOPSHARAD by SWAROOPSHARADPHADKE ssp PHADKE Date: 2022.07.0820:38:10 +0530 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2022

¶3

Ankush Vasant Shinde …Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶4

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil i/by Mr. Prashant S. Hagare, for Applicant.
Mrs. M.R.Tidke, APP, for State.
Mr. P.N.Chaudhar, PC, Yavat Police Station, Pune Gramin, present.

¶5

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶6

DATE : 1st JULY, 2022

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1.This is an application for bail in a prosecution arising out of C.R.No.575
of 2021 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune (Rural).

¶9

2.The Applicant is arraigned in the above crime with the allegations that
the Applicant and his family members had strained relations with Mr. Vikram S.
Shinde, who runs a brick kiln. Somnath Vikram Shinde, the first informant, is the son
of Vikram. Govind Suklal (the deceased) had joined as a labourer in the brick kiln of
the first informant eight days prior to the occurrence.

¶10

3.On 29th June, 2021 the first informant’s uncle Bhagwat Shinde informed
the first informant that the Applicant – Ankush forcibly took away the deceased on the
former’s motorcycle. The first informant and his brother in law Buvasaheb Dhanve
went in search of the deceased and the Applicant. At about 8.30 p.m., while they

¶11

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 1/6

¶12

ssp 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶13

were passing across the ground, they heard shouts emanating from near the cricket
pitch. They went thereat and found the Applicant assaulting the deceased by means of
stick and stone. Noticing them, the Applicant fled away despite an effort by
Buvasaheb Dhanve to catch hold of him. The deceased was shifted initially to Akshay
Nursing Home, Waravand. Later on, as the condition of the deceased was critical, he
was shifted to Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, where the deceased succumbed to the
injuries on 16th July, 2021.

¶14

4.In the meanwhile, on 30th June, 2021 the first informant lodged a report.
Investigation commenced. The Applicant came to be apprehended. Pursuant to the
discovery made by the Applicant, a stick was recovered from a place near Roshan
Supermarket. Post completion of investigation and finding the complicity of the
accused, charge sheet has been lodged.

¶15

5.The Applicant has preferred this application for bail. It is contended
that there was no motive. Neither there was intention to cause death, nor the
Applicant had used any deadly weapon. Thus, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.

¶16

6.I have heard Mr. Kuldeep Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Mrs. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

¶17

7.Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant would urge that the
deceased passed away on 16th July, 2021, well after 16 days of the alleged occurrence.

¶18

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 2/6

¶19

ssp 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶20

The Medical Officer opined that the victim died on account of the complications
following head injury. In the circumstances, according to Mr. Patil, even if the
prosecution case is taken at par, it would be difficult to sustain the charge for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, there was
no motive for the Applicant. At best, it can be said that the victim died in a fisticuffs.

¶21

8.In opposition to this, learned APP submitted that there is direct evidence
in the form of the ocular account of the first informant and Buvasaheb Dhanve,
brother in law of the first informant. Both the witnesses have consistently stated that,
hearing shouts, they went near the cricket pitch, on the ground, and found that the
Applicant was assaulting the deceased by means of stick and stone. The mere fact that
the deceased succumbed to those injuries, after a fortnight, does not justify an
inference that the act was not committed by the Applicant with intent to cause death
of the deceased. Reliance was also placed on the recovery of the weapon of offence
i.e. stick, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the Applicant.

¶22

9.I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid rival submissions.
In order to ascertain the nature of the injuries which the deceased had sustained on
the day of occurrence i.e. 29th June, 2021, the Investigating Officer was directed to
place on record the medical papers. The medical record maintained at Sassoon
General Hospital, indicates that the Applicant was brought thereat with history of
head injury, loss of consciousness and nose and oral bleed. The history of assault by

¶23

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 3/6

¶24

ssp 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶25

means of stone was also recorded.

¶26

10.In the aforesaid context, it would be relevant to note that the first
informant and Bhausaheb Dhanve state that upon being apprised by Bhagwat Shinde,
they went in search of the Applicant and the deceased. They heard shouts emanating
from near the cricket pitch, on the ground. They claimed to have seen the Applicant
assaulting the deceased by means of stick and stone.

¶27

11.At this stage, there is a prima facie material to show that the Applicant
was found assaulting the deceased. The material on record, however, does not
indicate that the Applicant was initially armed with any weapon. Bhagwat Shinde
who had allegedly seen the victim being taken away by the Applicant does not state
that at that time the Applicant was armed with any weapon. The scene of occurrence
panchanama indicates that a stone, which could fit in the palm, was seized from the
spot. The stick which was allegedly recovered pursuant to the discovery allegedly
made by the Applicant, was having a length of 3.6 inch and a radius of one inch.

¶28

12.Prima facie, the aforesaid weapons of offence, with which the Applicant
allegedly assaulted the deceased, do not appear to be deadly weapons. From the
perusal of the medical papers, it appears that the deceased had injuries primarily on
the head and face.

¶29

13.In the aforesaid backdrop, even if the prosecution case is taken at par, the
aspect as to whether the Applicant had inflicted the injuries with intent to cause the

¶30

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 4/6

¶31

ssp 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶32

death of the deceased, is a matter which warrants consideration. Since the deceased
had allegedly joined the first informant 8 days prior to the occurrence, prima facie,
the submission on behalf of the Applicant about absence of motive to liquidate the
deceased, also warrants consideration

¶33

14.In the totality of the circumstances, especially having regard to the time
and place of the occurrence, the weapons allegedly used, and the injuries suffered by
the deceased, which eventually led to the death of the deceased, after about 16 days of
the occurrence, in my view, a prima facie case for exercise of discretion is made out.

¶34

15.The apprehension on the part of the prosecution can be taken care of by
imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the following order :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i)The Application stands allowed.

¶37

(ii)The Applicant – Ankush Vasant Shinde be released on bail in

¶38

C.R.No.575 of 2021 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune (Rural), on furnishing a

¶39

PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶40

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

¶41

(iv)The Applicant shall mark his presence in the jurisdictional Court

¶42

of the learned Sessions Judge once in three months for a period of two years.

¶43

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 5/6

¶44

ssp 3 ba 632 of 2022-2.doc

¶45

(v)The Applicant shall not enter the limits of Deulgaon Gada, Tal.

¶46

Daund, Pune for a period of one year from today.

¶47

(vi)The Applicant shall, within a period of 7 days from his release,
furnish details of his place of residence during the aforesaid period of one year as well
as his permanent address and contact details to the Police Inspector, Yavat Police
Station and update the same in the event of any change therein.

¶48

(vii)By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations
hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the entitlement for bail and they may
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant.

¶49

The Application stands disposed.

¶50

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶51

 Corrected order as per Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 6th July, 2022. 6/6

Ankush Vasant Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Vasant Shinde 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Hanmant Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Kaluram Meghwal Vs State of Maharashtra

Ranveer Dhanaji Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra

Sachin Tukaram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deva Shankar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Bhakchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra