Disposed

Dnyaneshwar Bibhishan Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024BA/1560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case arising from cross-FIRs over a sudden quarrel between related families. The court found parity with co-accused already released and held precedents relied on by the intervenor inapplicable, granting bail with conditions including residence outside Mohol Taluka and monthly reporting.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in C.R. No.22/2023 on PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, subject to conditions including non-entry into Mohol Taluka and monthly police reporting.

Dnyaneshwar Bibhishan Chavan Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1560 OF 2023

¶4

Dnyaneshwar Bhibhishan Chavan...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2476 OF 2023

¶8

IN

¶9

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1560 OF 2023

¶10

Vishwan Bandu Chavan...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Ritesh Thobde a/w Mr. Changdev Shingade and Zubi Ansari, Mr.
Sagar Tamabe and Ms. Ankita Rai , Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for State.

¶12

Ms. Vilasini B. a/w Mr. Jaydeep Mane for Intervenor.

¶13

Mr. Rajesh Bhimsen Jadhav, Mohod Police Station (Solapur Rural),.
present

¶14

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 23rd JANUARY 2024

¶15

P. C.

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Thobde, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶17

Applicant, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for the

¶18

Respondent-State and Ms. Vilasini B. for the Intervenor.

¶19

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section

¶20

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant

¶21

details are as follows:-

¶22

1/10

¶23

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc

¶24

Dusane

¶25

`1.C. R. No.`	`22 of 2023`
`2.Date of Registration of F.I.R.`	`9th January 2023`
`3.Name of Police Station`	`Mohol Police Station,` `District Solapur`
`4.Section/s invoked`	`302, 326, 324, 323, 143, 147,` `148, 149, 504 and 506 of` `I.P.C., 1860.`
`5.Date of Incident`	`8th January 2023`
`6.Date of Arrest`	`9th January 2023`
`7.Date of filing of Charge-sheet`	`6th April 2023`

¶26

3. As per the prosecution case, a dispute was going on between the family of the Accused No.1- Bibhishan and family of deceased-Bandu Chavan since the past two years. Bandu and Bibhishan are cousin brothers.

¶27

4. Accused No. 4- Suman Bibhishan Chavan registered C. R. No.21 of 2023 at Mohol Police Station under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the F.I.R. in said Crime, the incident occurred at 08.00 p.m. on 8th

¶28

January 2023 where Bandu Manik Chavan, Vishwas Bandu
Chavan, Chhaya Bandu Chavan and Rohini Vishwas Chavan
came at the residence of the Accused No.1-Bibhishan in the
present Crime and started abusing said Bibhishan and his
family members on the ground that goats of the family of
Bibhishan had ventured into their farm. At that time, Vishwas
Bandu Chavan, Chhaya Bandu Chavan, Bandu Manik Chavan

¶29

2/10

¶30

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶31

assaulted the Applicant and his other family members. The
Charge-sheet has been filed in the said case. In the said case,
the Informant herein is one of the accused.

¶32

5.There is a cross F.I.R. filed by the Informant-Vishwas
Bandu Chavan, which is registered as C. R. No.22 of 2023
under Sections 302, 326, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the prosecution
case, in C. R. No. 22 of 2023, at the same time i.e. 08.00 pm.,

¶33

on 8th January 2023, Bibhishan-Accused No.1, Dnyaneshwar-
Accused No.2 (present Applicant), Ishwar-Accused No.3,
Suman-Accused No.4 and Sanika-Accused No.5 assaulted
family members of Bandu Chavan with stick, stones and fist
blows. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Applicant
has assaulted the mother of the Informant with a pot.

¶34

6.Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted
that there are cross-complaints lodged by both parties and that
even in complaints filed by family of the Applicant, Charge-
sheet has been filed. The Applicant has also been assaulted and
has suffered injuries. He submitted that the incident had
occurred suddenly. He submitted that the weapon allegedly
used is a stick and the same cannot be considered to be a
dangerous or sharp weapon. He further submitted that Accused

¶35

3/10

¶36

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶37

No.1 and the deceased are cousin brothers. There is a partition
Suit between them and the same is the cause for altercations.
He submitted that all the accused except the present Applicant,
have been enlarged on bail.

¶38

7.Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP submitted that the Applicant
was aware that the deceased had undergone a bypass surgery
and this fact was known to the Accused, who assaulted the
deceased with a stick on his chest. He submitted that the
injuries are on vital parts of the body. He therefore strongly
opposed the Bail Application.

¶39

8.Ms. Vilasini B., learned Counsel appearing for the
Intervenor pointed out the F.I.R. and other statements of eye-
witnesses and submitted that there is a specific role attributed
to the present Applicant. She submitted that the deceased was
assaulted with a stick on vital parts of his body. She pointed out
the Post Mortem Examination Report which records that the
cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to blunt trauma to
chest. She submitted that the recovery of stick is made at the
instance of the Applicant.

¶40

9. She also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate 1 and

¶41

1 2023 INSC 1006 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486

¶42

4/10

¶43

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶44

particularly on paragraph no. 18 of the same. She also relied on
another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumer
Singh v. State of Rajasthan2 and particularly on paragraph no.
28 of the same.

¶45

10.Perusal of the record shows that the incident had
occurred on 8th January 2023 at 8.00 pm. The F.I.R. is lodged
on 9th January 2023. There are cross-complaints. The Family of
the Applicant has also lodged the F.I.R. bearing C. R. No.21 of

¶46

2023 and the present F.I.R. is in C. R. No.22 of 2023. The
Applicant has been arrested on 9th January 2023. There are
total 5 accused persons. All the accused except the present
Applicant have been enlarged on bail. The Charge-sheet has
been filed on 6th April 2023.

¶47

11.Perusal of both C. R. i.e. C. R. No.21 of 2023 filed by the
family members of the present Applicant and the present C. R.
No.22 of 2023 filed by the informant-Intervenor shows that the
dispute started as quarrel over the Applicant's goats entering
the farm and destroying maize crops of the informant and
which led to altercations that escalated into physical assaults.

¶48

12. This is a case where the Applicant as well as family of the Applicant and deceased, both have suffered injuries. Prima

¶49

2 2021 INSC 343 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 511

¶50

5/10

¶51

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶52

facie, the incident had occurred due to a sudden quarrel and in
a spur of the moment. Admittedly, the deceased has died due to
an assault with a stick on his chest.

¶53

13.As far as the decision in the case of Tarun Kumar (supra)
is concerned, the Supreme Court has observed that while
applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus
upon the role attributed to the accused whose Application is
under consideration. As far as the other decision of the

¶54

Supreme Court in Kumer Singh (supra) is concerned, it has
been held that at the stage of considering bail Application, the
individual role of the accused is not required to be considered
when they are alleged to have been the part of an unlawful
assembly. In Kumer Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
considered that there were 26 injuries found on the dead body
of the deceased and 11 injuries on the injured Vikram Singh by
blunt and sharp weapons and therefore, held that merely
because the Accused were armed with lathis cannot be a
ground to release the accused on bail in the facts and
circumstances of that case.

¶55

14.As far as the present case is concerned, there are cross-
F.I.R.'s. The factual position on record clearly shows that there

¶56

was a sudden quarrel and then the incident in question has

¶57

6/10

¶58

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶59

occurred. The Applicant has also suffered injuries. In the case of
Kumer Singh (supra) it was not the case of cross F.I.R..

¶60

15.The Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar (supra) has held
that while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required
to focus upon the role attributed to the Accused, whose
Application is under consideration. Although it is clear that the
role of the present Applicant is different from other co-accused
and he has assaulted the deceased with stick on the chest,
however, it is clear that the incident has occurred in a spur of
moment. It is the deceased and his family members went to the
residence of the Applicant to raise the issue that the Applicant's
goats entering the farm and destroying maize crops of the
informant and which led to altercations that escalated into
physical assaults. Thus, the decisions cited by learned Counsel
appearing for the Intervenor have no application to the facts of
this case.

¶61

16.The Charge-sheet has been filed on 6th April 2023. The
trial has not yet commenced. According to the prosecution case,
there are 19 witnesses to be examined. The trial is likely to take
a considerably long time.

¶62

17.Mr. Thobde, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
on instructions states that as several witnesses are residing in

¶63

7/10

¶64

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶65

the same locality as that of the Applicant, the Applicant will
therefore not reside within Taluka-Mohol, District-Solapur and
that the Applicant will reside at Nimgaon(M), Velapur, Taluka-
Malshiras, District- Solapur.

¶66

18.The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of flight.

¶67

19.The Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶68

20.Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by
imposing conditions. In view thereof, the following order:-

¶69

O R D E R

¶70

(a)The Applicant - Dnyaneshwar Bhibhishan

¶71

Chavan be released on bail in connection with C.
R. No.22 of 2023 registered with the Mohol Police
Station, Taluka-Mohol, District-Solapur on his
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶72

(b)The Applicant shall not enter the Taluka-
Mohol, District-Solapur after being released on bail
except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if
called.

¶73

(c)On being released on bail, the Applicant
shall furnish his cell phone number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep

¶74

8/10

¶75

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶76

the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶77

(d)The Applicant shall report to the Velapur
Police Station, Taluka-Malshiras, District-Solapur
once every month, on every Sunday between 11.00
a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.
The Police Inspector of Velapur Police Station,
Taluka-Malshiras, District-Solapur to communicate
details thereof to the Investigating Officer.

¶78

(e)The Applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the
facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

¶79

(f)The Applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witnesses in any manner.

¶80

(g)The Applicant shall attend the trial
regularly. The Applicant shall co-operate with the
Trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments thereat.

¶81

(h)The Applicant shall surrender his passport,

¶82

if any, to the Investigating Officer.

¶83

9/10

¶84

26 BA 1560.23+IA 2476.doc
Dusane

¶85

21. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶86

 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶87

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶88

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2024.01.24 10:52:51 +0530

¶89

10/10

Dnyaneshwar Bibhishan Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Bibhishan Chavan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapnil Bhima Bhande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asha Navasu Nadage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagannath Alias Santosh Annarao Revangol Vs State of Maharashtra

Shubham Ashok Shendage vs State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Ravindra Vilas Navale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kafil Nasim Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra