In two bail applications regarding murder charges, the High Court rejected the pleas. The judge found prima facie evidence of conspiracy and motive, holding that the applicants failed to establish sufficiency of grounds for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. Trial was expedited.
Bail applications rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial.
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.
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1283 of 2021
VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV
Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESHJADHAVDate: 2023.08.1815:27:28 +0530
Rohit Dattatraya Shende … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2021
Ghanshyam Popat Darade … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam with Mr. Prasad Avhad with Mr. Surajsingh S. Malas for the applicant in BA/1283/2021.
Mr. Harshad Nimbalkar with Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar i/by Mr. Onkar Chitale for the applicant in BA/2442/2021.
Ms. A. S. Pail, PP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 18, 2023
P.C.:
1
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 seeking their release on bail.
The informant-Prashant Chandrashekhar More is the brother of the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More. Initially, on 2nd October 2020, a missing complaint bearing No.16 of 2020 was filed stating that on 1st October 2020, he received a call from the wife of the deceased informing the informant that the deceased had not returned home on the said day from the court and his mobile number was also turned switched off.
Subsequently, on 5th October 2020, the Police registered the present FIR under the provision of section 365 of the IPC against an unknown person. It is stated in the complaint that the deceased, Umesh Chandrashekhar More has been a resident of Dhankawadi, Pune, for the last four years. On 1st October 2020 at 9:30 p.m., the informant received a call from the wife of the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More, who informed him that on the said day at 11:00 a.m., the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More had left home for court and he had not returned home till 09:30 p.m. The deceased's wife further informed the informant that the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More, on the said day in the afternoon, had met Advocate B. N. Jagtap and, thereafter, at around 03:00 p.m. One Ajay Kunthe had called the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More when the deceased had informed him that he was at his Senior's Office and would return in 15 minutes. However, he did not return, and his phone was switched off.
2
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
The informant, thereafter, came to Pune and took a search for his brother Umesh Chandrashekhar More. However, I could not get information on his whereabouts and, therefore, on 2nd October 2020, a missing complaint bearing No.16 of 2020 was registered with Shivajinagar Police Station. Till the date of filing of the FIR dated 5th October 2020, the deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More was not found, or no information could be gathered in respect of the same and, therefore, the informant and his family alleged that some unknown person had abducted his brother/deceased Umesh Chandrashekhar More. Accordingly, FIR was lodged against an unknown person for his abduction.
3
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
the deceased against accused No.3 cannot be termed as a motive as accused No.3 was already released on bail, and the material on record indicates that the said dispute was amicably settled by the deceased and accused No.3. The transcript placed on record does not indicate complicity of the accused Nos.3 and 4. CCTV footage shows that the deceased was travelling on a two-wheeler; however, according to the prosecution, he was abducted in Swift Car. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that other persons might be involved in the murder of the deceased as the deceased had strained relations with many other persons. Relation of the deceased with several other persons was strained, which may be a motive for others to commit the murder of the deceased. According to the learned advocate for accused No.4, he has neither been named by any witness nor is there any material against accused No.4 to implicate him in the alleged offences. According to him, he was working with accused No.3. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated. The applicants, therefore, deserve to be released on bail.
4
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
location, residence, and place of work of the deceased. It is sufficient to indicate that the applicants, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, committed the planned murder of the deceased. Extrajudicial confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 supports the prosecution case. She, therefore, prayed for the rejection of the bail applications of the applicants.
“ 5. For releasing the respondent on bail, the High Court has ventured to refer to the merits of the case and prematurely held that there was no material on record to show that the respondent was guilty of conspiracy, in the execution of which, Shubhangi, once his beloved, was murdered. Despite observing that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court did not afford the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence for establishing the existence of conspiracy and wrongly held that it was difficult to infer the existence of a conspiracy, particularly when the respondent had gone to Baramati. The factum of the respondent going to Baramati was relied upon by the prosecution as one of the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the crime, particularly when it was alleged that while at Baramati, he used to have telephonic talks with the other accused persons about the alleged conspiracy. In the absence of "exact talks", the High Court found that the allegation of conspiracy was not established. The Single Judge of the High Court was not justified, at the initial stage, to observe:
5
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
"....it is difficult to say that after the conspiracy was hatched the applicant had been to Baramati and from there he used to have talks with other accused on phone regarding the alleged conspiracy."
6
d-ba1283& ba2442-2021-f.doc
deceased's residents and court timings. The transcript prima facie reveals that the accused Nos.1 and 2, kept watch on the deceased from 26th September 2020 till the date of the kidnapping of the deceased. The DNA report prima facie shows the identity of the deceased. The cumulative effect of material on record indicates that accused No.3 had the motive to commit the murder of the deceased, and accused No.4 assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 in keeping watch on the deceased and about his whereabouts. The material on record prima facie indicates the existence of a conspiracy by accused Nos.3 and 4 to commit the murder of the deceased.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case deserving bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in offences involving conspiracy for murder.
Whether the existence of prima facie evidence of conspiracy and motive justifies rejecting the bail applications.
Whether the High Court should exercise discretion to grant bail in trial pending stages where conspiracy ingredients are prima facie fulfilled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra vs. Ritesh S/o Vasudeo WanjariReferred¶37
(2001) 4 SCC 224 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vaibhav Ramesh Jadhav
Ghanshyam Popat Darade
The State of Maharashtra
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
