Allowed

Sonu Pawan Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Feb 2024BA/2498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, a son of the deceased accused of murdering him with his cousin under Section 302 IPC. The court upheld parity with a co-accused and ordered release against anticipated flight risk and tampering by imposing specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties, subject to conditions including weekly reporting, no contact with witnesses, and surrender of passport.

Sonu Pawan Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

29 BA 2498.23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2023

¶4

Sonu Pawan Sharma...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. S.R. Divekar, Advocate/s for the Applicant.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 12th February 2024

¶7

P. C.

¶8

1. Heard Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

¶9

and Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.

¶10

2.This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the

¶11

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are as follows:-

¶12

`1.C.R. No.`	`601 of 2022`
`2.Date of registration of F.I.R.`	`14`^th`June 2022`
`3.Name of Police Station`	`Kondhwa Police Station, Pune`
`4.Section/s invoked`	`302, 201 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal` `Code, 1860.`
`5.Date of incident`	`14`^th`June 2022`
`6.Date of arrest`	`15`^th`June 2022`

¶13

3. Accused No.3-Yashoda Sharma is the wife of deceased-Pawan

¶14

Sharma. Accused No.1 (Applicant) is the son of deceased-Pawan

¶15

Sharma and Accused No.2 is the cousin brother of Accused No.1. As per

¶16

the prosecution case, the relations of deceased-Pawan Sharma and

¶17

1/5

¶18

Dusane

¶19

29 BA 2498.23.doc

¶20

Accused No.3-Yashoda Sharma were not cordial. The incident in
question took place on 14th June 2022. As per the prosecution case, the
Applicant i.e. Accused No.1 and the Accused No.2 killed the deceased
by strangulation and thereafter Accused Nos. 1 and 2 disposed of the
body at Bopdev Ghat near Pune.

¶21

4.Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
submitted that the entire case is of circumstantial evidence. He
submitted that the role of the present Applicant and Accused No.2 is the
same and that Accused No.2 has been granted bail by Order dated 2nd
June 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in
Bail Application No.1285 of 2023. He submitted that therefore, the
parity is applicable and the Applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He
submitted that there are no antecedents.

¶22

5.On the other hand, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP strongly opposed
the Bail Application. He submitted that there is a C.C.T.V. footage, which
shows the involvement of the Applicant in the offence in question. He
submitted that there is a recovery of a two- wheeler vehicle which was
used in the offence. Learned APP also submitted that the Applicant is
from Madhya Pradesh and therefore he may not be available during the
trial. On instructions, he submitted that there are no antecedents.

¶23

6.Perusal of the record shows that this case is of circumstantial
evidence.

¶24

2/5

¶25

Dusane

¶26

29 BA 2498.23.doc

¶27

7.As far as the contention of Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel
appearing for the Applicant regarding parity is concerned, the relevant
discussion is in paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the Order dated 2nd June 2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which reads as

¶28

under:-

¶29

“8.I have gone through the record of the case and the
ration of above mentioned rulings. The entire prosecution
case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the
prosecution case, accused No.1 and 2 had strangulated the
deceased with the help of nylon rope and thereafter carried
his body on motorcycle and disposed it at Bopdev Ghat, Pune.
There is no direct evidence of the commission of murder. It
appears that prosecution heavily relied upon evidence of
CCTV footage to show that accused No. 1 and 2 were carrying
the dead body of deceased on motorcycle. It appears that
investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. It
will take considerable time to conclude the trial. The present
accused is in judicial custody for more than 11 months.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of above discussion, and ratio of the above
mentioned rulings the further detention of accused in judical
custody appears to be unnecessary. The ratio of above
mentioned ruling his helpful to the case of accused. Hence, it
would be proper to release the accused on bail.

¶30

9.The prosecution has apprehended that accused is
resident of Madhya Pradesh and he might abscond, if released
on bail. So also, it is apprehended that accused might tamper
with prosecution evidence and pressurise witnesses. This
aspect can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions
on the accused. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of above discussion, it
would be proper to release the accused on bail. ”

¶31

Thus, the role of the present Applicant (Accused No.1) and the

¶32

Accused No.2 is the same. Therefore parity is applicable.

¶33

3/5

¶34

Dusane

¶35

29 BA 2498.23.doc

¶36

8. As far as the C.C.T.V. footage and recovery of motorcycle used in the offence is concerned, the same is at the most only concerning destruction of evidence.

¶37

9.As per the Charge-sheet, there are about 20 witnesses proposed to
be examined by the prosecution. The Charge is not yet framed. There is
no progress in the trial. The trial is likely to take a considerably long
time.

¶38

10. The Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶39

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

¶40

12. Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing

¶41

conditions.

¶42

13. In view thereof, the following order:-

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(a)The Applicant - Sonu Pawan Sharma be released on bail in
connection with C. R. No.601 of 2022 registered with the Kondhwa
Police Station, District-Pune on his furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/-
with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶45

(b)On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish his cell
phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and
shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶46

(c)The Applicant shall report to the Kondhwa Police Station, District-

¶47

Pune on the first Sunday of every week for three months and thereafter

¶48

4/5

¶49

Dusane

¶50

29 BA 2498.23.doc

¶51

once in 15 days until conclusion of trial between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00

¶52

p.m.

¶53

(d)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.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(g) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.

¶57

14.The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

15.It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima facie,
and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced
by the observations made in this Order.

¶59

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶60

 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶61

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2024.02.12 19:13:28 +0530

¶62

5/5

¶63

Dusane

Sonu Pawan Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Pawan Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar @Vishal Yashwant Varule Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinayak @ Nanu Narayan Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baburao Balaso Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shamal Dattatray Patil Vs State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Jivan Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra

Suraj Devidas Ugalmugale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.