Allowed

Satish Babulal Kushwaha v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Dec 2024BA/1963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by accused whose alleged role was procuring the weapon used in a firing at a person in Hingoli. With no direct evidence connecting the applicant and the main shooter already granted bail by the Supreme Court on grounds of prolonged trial pendency, the court granted bail on a PR bond with conditions including no contact with the informant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on PR bond of Rs.20,000 with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions including no contact with informant and cooperation with trial.

Satish Babulal Kushwaha Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:28677

¶2

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

908 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1963 OF 2024

¶4

Satish Babulal Kushwaha VERSUS

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bagdiya Arpit Kamalkishor APP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale

¶7

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : December 06, 2024.

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶10

The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested in connection with FIR No.0658/2023, dated 02/08/2023, registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under sections 34, 307, 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 27 of the Arms Act.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that on 01/08/2023, at about 3:00 p.m., information was received regarding a firing incident at the Hingoli Zilla Parishad Office area. Upon receiving the information, the police rushed to the spot, where a crowd had gathered. The people present informed the police that some individuals had fired at a person named Pappu Chavan from Hingoli, injuring him. At the scene, the police found two live rounds and one fired cartridge.

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

908 BA 1963-2024

¶14

Upon reviewing CCTV footage, the police identified Akshay Indoriya, Om Pawar, Satyam Deshmukh, Ram Kale, and Ajinkya Naik at the scene. Subsequently, Ajinkya Naik was arrested. During his interrogation, he revealed that two months prior to the incident, the victim, Pappu Chavan, had allegedly assaulted him over an issue related to the daughter of one Kanbale. He further disclosed that the firing was carried out as an act of revenge for the earlier incident.

¶15

In the instant case, the applicant was arrested on 08/08/2023 and has been in jail since then. The charge sheet has been filed, and the case against the applicant is outlined on page 48 of the charge sheet as follows : -

¶16

“lnj xqUg~;kpk riklkr vkjskih dz 04 ;kps vkjksih dz 03 lkscr izse laca/k gksrs o#u lnj vkjskih ;kaP;k ?kjP;k lkax.;ko#u ;krhy t[keh ;kus vkjksih dz 04 o 05 ;kl cksykoqu R;kauk ekjgk.k dsyh o#u lnj izdj.kkpk cnyk ?ks.;klkBh vkjksih dz 03 P;k lkax.;ko#u vkjskih dz 04 ;kus vkjksih dz 01] 02] 05 lkscr lax.ker d#u vkjskih dz 06 P;k enrhus xkoBh fiLVy] xkoBh dVVk o jkmaM fodr ?ksoqu t[keh ;kP;k oj ikGr Bsoqu lnj ueqn ?kVuk fnukad] osGh o fBdk.kh ;krhy vkjksihrkauh t[keh gk ,dVk vlY;kps [kk=h d#u dV jpqu R;kP;koj vkjksih dz 04 o fo/kh la?k”kZxzLr ckyd ;kP;klkscr ftos ekj.;kP;k mnns’kkus t[kehoj xksGhckj d#u iGwu xsys- ”

¶17

It is mentioned that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were involved in a

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

908 BA 1963-2024

¶20

romantic relationship. At the instance of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5, a conspiracy was hatched to eliminate the victim. The firing at the Zilla Parishad premises was part of this conspiracy, and the weapon used in the firing was procured through accused No. 6, the present applicant.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant highlights that the main accused in the matter, Ajinkya, who is alleged to have fired at the victim, has been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through an order dated 31/07/2024, passed in Special Leave to Appeal No.5231/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its order, observed in paragraphs 3 and 4 :-

¶22

“3. The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 specifically stated that the petitioner is not found in the CCTV footage, however his voice could be identified in the audio recordings of the audio set found at the spot.”

¶23

“4. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with the offence under Section 307 IPC on 02/08/2023. The petitioner would complete one year of incarceration and the charge-sheet has also been filed.”

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused, who allegedly fired the weapon, has been granted bail due to the prolonged pendency of the trial. He argues that the only evidence

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

908 BA 1963-2024

¶27

against the present applicant is based on the statement of a coaccused, from which the weapon recovery was made. Additionally, other evidence, such as withdrawals, is based on the statement of the brother of the co-accused, who resides in the same locality as the applicant.

¶28

There is no direct evidence connecting the applicant to the offence. Considering that the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to the main accused on the grounds of prolonged trial pendency, it is submitted that the same principle should apply in the present case. The applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.

¶29

In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms : -

¶30

a] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.0658/2023, dated 02/08/2023, registered with Hingoli City Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under sections 34, 307, 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 27 of the Arms Act, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶31

b] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial.

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

908 BA 1963-2024

¶34

c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.

¶35

d] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶36

e] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change.

¶37

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. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶38

12. The application stands disposed of.

¶39

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶40

vj gawade/-.

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Satish Babulal Kushwaha v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Babulal Kushwaha 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

Mohd. Anisoddin Mohd. Hafizoddin Farookhi Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Haji Abdul Rahim Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vimalbai W/O Eknath Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajendra Gangadhar Lawande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Priyanka W/O Sanjaykumar Dhawale @ Priyanka D/O Shankar Gaware @ Priya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Baburao Bhusare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others