Allowed

Rajabhau Rustumrao Khandagale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Mar 2023BA/164/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of a professional driver accused of being a getaway driver in a murder case, finding the prosecution case unsatisfactory as the main accused had illicit relations with the deceased's wife and the vehicle involvement remained unclear with no dispute on record.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal and surety bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one solvent surety.

Rajabhau Rustumrao Khandagale Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

913-ba-164-2023.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2023

¶5

RAJABHAU RUSTUMRAO KHANDAGALE
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Khandagale Jeevan Vitthalrao & Mr.
Bhosle Pratik A
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale

¶8

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶9

 DATED : MARCH 29, 2023

¶10

PER COURT:-

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP

¶12

for the State.

¶13

2.The applicant was the driver of the vehicle allegedly used
for committing the crime. The applicant has a case that he is a
professional driver of the motor vehicle. The main accused has hired
him to drive the cruiser vehicle bearing registration No. MH-22-H-
3048 owned by one Narayan Uttamrao Ghene. No incident as such
happened. He never had any intention to kill anybody. As per the
prosecution case, the incident happened on 02.05.2021 and the
report was lodged on 03.05.2021 making allegations that the
deceased met with a vehicular accident and a truck bearing
registration No. MH22-AN-8085 caused the accident. The applicant
has been made a scapegoat in the case. He had no concern with the

¶14

913-ba-164-2023.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

dispute whatsoever between the deceased and the main accused on
having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 03.08.2022. The charge sheet has also been
filed. Hence, he may be released on bail.

¶17

3.Learned APP has an explanation that initially, the
involvement of one truck bearing No. MH-22-AN-8085 was shown
with a view to secure the motor vehicle accident claim. But
subsequently it was transpired that the said cruiser vehicle was used
to commit the murder of the deceased. The main accused had illicit
relations with the wife of the deceased. Hence in conspiracy with all
the co-accused, the deceased has been eliminated under the pretext of
motor vehicular accident. The applicant was also the member of the
conspiracy and was hired to execute the conspiracy. The offence is
serious. Hence, he may not be granted bail.

¶18

4.Considering the material improvement in the prosecution
case as regards the involvement of the vehicle, it appears that the
complainant was not sure about the incident. There were two eye
witnesses who initially did not state the involvement of the cruiser
vehicle, allegedly driven by the applicant. As far as the extra marital
relations of the wife of the deceased with the main accused is
concerned, there is nothing on record to show that there was a
dispute between the deceased and the main accused over the said
issue. The overall material collected by the prosecution is not

¶19

913-ba-164-2023.odt
(3)

¶20

satisfactory to believe the prosecution case that the applicant
deliberately caused the accident with a view to kill the deceased. The
main accused and the applicant had telephonic conversation, it may
be about hiring him.

¶21

5.Considering the facts, the Court is of the view that this is
a fit case for granting bail. Hence, the following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i)Bail Application is allowed.

¶24

(ii)The applicant, Rajebhau Rustumrao Khandagale, be released on
bail on executing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount in connection with Crime
No.120 of 2021, registered with Selu Police Station, District Parbhani
for the offence punishable under Section 302, 120-B, 201, 203, 427,

¶25

403, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the conditions that he
shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

(iii)The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every effective
date.

¶27

 (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶28

Mujaheed//

Rajabhau Rustumrao Khandagale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajabhau Rustumrao Khandagale 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

Rajesh Ashok Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramesh Namdeo Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Maroti Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sachin Vasant Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Pawankumar Dhaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Faheem Abdul Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another