Allowed

Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2022IA/110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted absolute anticipatory bail to applicants charged with illegal sand mining. The court held that custody is unwarranted as the applicants' presence at the scene of the primary alleged incident was in doubt, roots to tie them to their residence existed, and recovery of stolen sand was improbable.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail allowed; interim bail orders made absolute; applicants directed to appear regularly in jurisdictional court.

Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

SWAROOP Digitally signed bySWAROOP SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.07.1617:37:21 +0530

¶2

19 ABA 50 OF 2022.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2022

¶4

Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar …Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2022
…
Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. Applicants
and
Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar …Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2022
Sandesh Radhakrishna Mathkar …Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2022
…
Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. Applicants
and
Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar …Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Mr. Avinash Avhad i/by Mr. Mahesh Rawool for Applicant in ABA 50 of 2022.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Mr. Atmaram Patade, Mr. Yash Patade, Mr. Suraj Naik i/
by Mr. Atmaram Patade, for Applicant in ABA 1 of 2022.
Mr. Y.Y.Dabke, APP, for State.

¶6

Mr. Suresh Sabrad, for Applicant in both Ias.

¶7

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 14th JULY, 2022

¶9

SSP 1/5

¶10

19 ABA 50 OF 2022.doc

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1.These Applications are preferred for pre-arrest bail in connection with
C.R.No.189 of 2021 registered with Malvan Police Station for an offence punishable
under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶13

2.Mr. Ramkrishna V. Khot, is the resident of Village Kalse-Bagwadi,
Malvan. His agricultural land is situated on the banks of river Karli. Illegal
excavation of the sand from the river bed has caused irretrievable damage to the
environment as well as to the adjacent agricultural lands on the banks of the river. On
21st August, 2021 at about 9.30 p.m., the first informant and his associates noticed
mechanized boats in the river bed. 40-50 persons in 5 to 6 boats were found
excavating the sand illegally. Few locals namely Uday Narvekar, Vinod Narvekar,
Sunil Korgaonkar, Jayawant Khot, Shahu Warak and Sakharam Acharekar were also
amongst them. When the associate of the first informant started video recording the
unauthorized excavation of the sand, by using mobile, those persons pelted sand balls
towards them. On 28th November, 2021 at about 3.00 p.m., again illegal sand mining
was carried out. The said unauthorized excavation of the sand was being carried out at
the instance of Amrut S. Narvekar (Applicant in ABA No.50 of 2022) and the boats of
Applicant – Amrut S. Narvekar and Sandesh R. Mathkar (Applicant in ABA 1 of 2022)
were used for the said unauthorized excavation of the sand. Hence, the report.
3.On 4th January, 2022 and 14th January, 2022 this Court was persuaded to

¶14

SSP 2/5

¶15

19 ABA 50 OF 2022.doc

¶16

grant interim pre-arrest bail to the Applicants. In ABA No.1 of 2022 (Sandesh
Mathkar V/s. State of Maharashtra), while granting interim pre-arrest bail, this Court
inter alia noted that there is little possibility of recovery of the sand even assuming that
illegal sand mining was done. In ABA No.50 of 2022, while granting interim
protection on 14th January, 2022, this Court recorded that at the time of alleged illegal
sand mining, the Applicant was not present on 21st August, 2021. The Court further
noted that as regards the allegation of illegal sand mining on 28th November, 2021 the
allegation was that there were boats of the Applicant herein employed for the alleged
sand mining.

¶17

4.The first informant has filed Intervention Applications opposing the
grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicants.

¶18

5.I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned APP for the
State and the learned Counsel for the Interveners.

¶19

6.Incidentally, the FIR is lodged in respect of the two alleged incidents of
illegal sand mining. The first incident allegedly occurred on 21st August, 2021 at about
9.30 p.m. According to the first informant, the sand was being unauthorizedly
excavated by employing 5-6 meachanised boats with 40-50 persons on board. None of
the Applicants was allegedly present at the time of the said illegal sand mining on the
night of 21st August, 2021. The first informant alleges that the said illegal sand mining
was caused and patronized by the Applicant – Amrut Narvekar. Prima facie, the

¶20

SSP 3/5

¶21

19 ABA 50 OF 2022.doc

¶22

offence punishable under Section 379 of the Code is, thus, not attracted qua the
Applicants in respect of the first occurrence on 21st August, 2021.

¶23

7.As regards the second occurrence dated 28th November, 2021, again the
allegation is that illegal sand mining was being carried out by employing 8 boats owned
by the Applicants. There were 40-50 unknown out of State labourers, apart from the
8 locals named in the FIR including the Applicants herein.

¶24

8.It seems that the principal grievance of the first informant and his
associates is that the Applicants are instrumental in illegal sand mining from the river
bed.

¶25

9.In the backdrop of this nature of the accusation, especially in the context
of the incidents dated 21st August, 2021 and 28th November, 2021, where the presence
of the Applicants at the scene of occurrence as the persons who were found to be
moving the stolen property is in the corridor of uncertainty, a prima facie case is made
out for exercise of discretion. In any event, the custodial interrogation of the
Applicants is not at all warranted. Apparently, the Applicants have roots to tie them
down to their place of residence and avocation. The possibility of fleeing away from
justice seems to be extremely remote. I am, thus, inclined to make the order of
interim pre-arrest absolute. Hence, the following order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The Applications stand allowed.

¶28

SSP 4/5

¶29

19 ABA 50 OF 2022.doc

¶30

(ii)The order dated 14th January, 2022 in ABA No.50 of 2022

¶31

granting pre-arrest bail to Applicant – Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar, is made absolute on
the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶32

(iii)The order dated 4th January, 2022 in ABA No.1 of 2022 granting
pre-arrest bail to the Applicant – Sandesh Radhakrishna Mathkar is made absolute on
the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶33

(iv)In addition, the Applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings

¶34

before the jurisdictional Court.

¶35

(v)In view of the disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Application
Nos.50 of 2022 and 1 of 2022, the Interim Application Nos.110 of 2022 and 414 of

¶36

2022 also stand disposed.

¶37

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶38

SSP

Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Namdeo Shankar Parit Vs State of Maharashtra

Dnyandeo Krishna Lakade Vs State of Maharashtra

Balu Shivaji Lakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramkrishna Vyankatesh Khot and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhajansingh Indersingh Sachdev and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra