Allowed

Sunil Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jun 2024ABA/1604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail observing the FIR was based on delayed hearsay information lacking corroboration and stated by a third party. The applicants were directed to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the IO on specified dates, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one/two sureties, appearance before IO on 26.06.2024, no tampering with evidence, and attendance at Trial Court.

Sunil Narayan Shinde and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

507.ABA.1604.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1604 OF 2024

¶4

Sunil Narayna Shinde & Anr.

¶5

...Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

¶10

 Mr. Rupesh Zade a/w Ms. Priyanka Gupta, for Applicants.

¶11

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶12

 Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, APP for State.

¶13

 Mr. R.A. Salunke, H.C., Madha Police Station, Solapur (Rural).

¶14

¶15

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.06.21 10:25:03 +0530

¶16

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 20^th JUNE, 2024.

¶17

P. C. :

¶18

Heard, Mr. Rupesh Zade, learned counsel appearing for the

¶19

applicant and Mr. Balraj Kulkarni, learned APP for the State.

¶20

The applicants along with other accused persons are alleged to have driven the niece of applicant No.1 to commit suicide. It is stated that she was a minor. In that context, the applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with First Information No.0029 of 2024 dated 21^st February, 2024 registered at Police Station Madha, Solapur (Rural), for the offences under Sections 305, 201, 176 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶21

The incident is said to have taken place on 24^th December, 2023,

¶22

while the FIR is registered after about two months on 21^st February, 2024.

¶23

Page1 of 5

¶24

Shrikant Malani

¶25

507.ABA.1604.2024.doc

¶26

The informant is a Police Patil, who claims that a villager informed her about the incident on 24^th December, 2023, and hence, she had approached the police for registration of FIR.

¶27

The informant has stated that the said villager informed her on mobile phone that the applicant No.1 and co-accused Anil Narayan Shinde i.e. his brother had married of the victim i.e. the niece of the applicant No.1 even though she was a minor. It is further stated that the victim was not living with her husband and that she was in touch with a boy from the village. It is then stated that applicant No.2 allegedly saw the victim along with certain boys and he confronted her when the boys ran away and at this stage the applicant No.2 called the applicant No.1 to inform him about the said incident. It is alleged that applicant No.1 reached the place at about 02.30 a.m. in the night of 24^th December, 2024 and 25^th December, 2023. Both the applicants beat up the victim and took her home. Due to this, the minor victim girl consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide.

¶28

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the FIR is delayed by about two months and it is entirely based on hearsay. There is no basis for the informant to state the details of the alleged incident other than what was narrated to her by the said villager. It is alleged that the aforesaid villager, although his name appears to be erroneously stated by the informant

¶29

Page2 of 5

¶30

Shrikant Malani

¶31

507.ABA.1604.2024.doc

¶32

in her statement, is the very person having civil dispute with the family of applicant No.1. It is indicated that a proceeding under the Mamlatdar Courts Act was initiated against the said villager and he has tried to falsely implicate the applicants.

¶33

On the other hand Mr. Balraj Kulkarni, learned APP submits that the statement of said villager is recorded and there is nothing to indicate that he is the very person, who had civil dispute with the family of applicant No.1. It is submitted that there are statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation showing that they found smell of poisonous substance coming from the mouth of the victim, thereby indicating the genuineness of the information given by the informant to the police.

¶34

This Court has considered the material on record. The FIR has been registered after about two months of the alleged incident. A perusal of the statement of the informant shows that it is completely based on the information allegedly given by villager. The details of the alleged incident have been stated by the said villager as if he had witnessed the incident. There is nothing to support such a proposition.

¶35

It is interesting to note that the statement of the said villager, recorded during investigation, indicates that he in turn was given the said information by a third person.

¶36

Page3 of 5

¶37

Shrikant Malani

¶38

507.ABA.1604.2024.doc

¶39

Even if the angle of the backdrop of the civil dispute with the said villager leading to approaching the police Patil i.e. the informant is discounted, the manner in which information is provided to the police by the informant indicates that the same is based on hearsay. In any case, such information was placed before the police about two months after the alleged incident. There are no eye witnesses and there is presently scant material on record to corroborate the sequence of events narrated by the informant in her statement, which led to registration of the FIR.

¶40

As long as the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation, they have indeed made out a case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶41

In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following

¶42

terms :

¶43

(A) In the event, the applicants are arrested in connection First Information No.0029 of 2024 dated 21^st February, 2024 registered at Police Station Madha, Solapur (Rural), for the offences under Sections 305, 201, 176 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, they shall be released on furnishing P.R. bond of 25,000/- and one or₹

¶44

Page4 of 5

¶45

Shrikant Malani

¶46

507.ABA.1604.2024.doc

¶47

two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶48

(B) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer on 26^th June, 2024 and thereafter as and when called by the investigating officer.

¶49

(C) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other person concerned with the case.

¶50

(D) The applicants shall attend the Trial Court proceedings on each and every date, except when specifically exempted by the Trial Court.

¶51

Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶52

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are

¶53

limited to the question of grant of bail to the applicants and that the Trial

¶54

Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶55

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶56

Page5 of 5

¶57

Shrikant Malani

Sunil Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Ashok Kanthe vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivam Kamlesh Pandey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Ingale vs State of Maharashtra

Krantilal Kamgar Union vs Ipca Laboratories Ltd.

Dinesh Mohan Kodmur vs State of Maharashtra

Mayur Dattatray Markad and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra