Allowed

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2024BA/3186/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal bail application arising from a fatal road rage incident involving IPC Sections 302 etc., granted bail to two female applicants, a senior citizen and her sister, subject to specific conditions including one-monthly police report and non-entering Solapur district.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on bail by furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount, subject to strict reporting and non-entry conditions.

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Anr. Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶2

2024:BHC-AS:5971

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3186 OF 2023

¶6

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar & Anr.…Applicants
Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶8

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Keral Mehta and Mr. Pundalik
Bhalbar, Advocates for the Applicants.

¶9

Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, Advocate for the Intervenor/Original
Complainant.

¶11

Mr. Sachin S. Jagtap, A.S.I. attached to Sangola Police Station,
Solapur Rural present.

¶12

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 7^th FEBRUARY 2024

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned Counsel appearing

¶15

for the Applicants, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State and Mr. Vadgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing
for the Intervenor-Original Complainant.

¶16

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

¶17

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are

¶18

as follows:-

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶21

`1.C. R. No.`	`448 of 2023`
`2.Date of Registration of F.I.R.`	`23/05/2023`
`3.Name of Police Station`	`Sangola Police Station,` `District-Solapur`
`4.Section/s invoked`	`302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of` `the I.P.C., 1860` `4 & 25 of the Arms Act, 1959` `135 of the Maharashtra Police` `Act, 1951`
`5.Date of incident`	`22/05/2023`
`6.Date of arrest`	`24/05/2023`
`7.Date of filing Charge-sheet`	`19/08/2023`

¶22

3.As per the prosecution case, on 22nd May 2023 at 7.45 p.m.,
the deceased-Amol Lavate along with his cousin one Mahesh
Lavate, left on their motorcycle for Sangola and on their way to
Sangola while they were at the Waki Gheradi Chowk, one white
Innova Car travelling at a high speed crashed into their motorcycle.
Due to the said collision, the motorcycle slipped down the road.
The said car was being driven by Accused No.2-Sharad Shivaji
Pawar. His father-Accused No.1-Shivaji Pawar was on the rear seat
and brother of Shivaji Pawar i.e. Accused No.3-Bharat Pawar was
on the front seat. In view of the said accident, a verbal spat and a
heated altercation occurred between the deceased and three
Accused persons i.e. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶25

4.As per the prosecution case, the house of said Shivaji Pawar
was near the spot of the said incident and that Shivaji Pawar
immediately went to his residence and told the Accused Nos.2 and

¶26

3 to restrain and detain the deceased in the meanwhile. He
returned running to the spot carrying a knife from his house and
the present Applicants i.e. Accused No.4-Shantabai alias Shanta
Shivaji Pawar wife of Accused No.1 and Accused No.5-Vijaya alias
Vijubai Pandurang Jadhav i.e. sister of Accused No.1 also rushed to
the said spot. They both were carrying chilli powder in their hands.
As per the prosecution case, they threw chilli powder on the face of
the deceased. The deceased was assaulted by Accused No.1-Shivaji
Pawar.

¶27

5. It is the contention of Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel

¶28

appearing for the Applicants that Applicant No.2 is a senior citizen
aged 64 years and the Applicant No.1 is aged 58 years. He
submitted that the said incident has occurred in a spur of the
moment and there is nothing on record to show that the said
incident was premeditated. He submitted that at the most, the role
of the present Applicants is that they have thrown chilli powder on
the face of the deceased. He pointed out the Post-Mortem

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶31

Examination Report and particularly the Column No.9 therein and
the observations recorded under ‘Features’. He pointed out that as
per the Post-Mortem Examination Report, eyes are observed to be
semi-open and natural. He therefore, submitted that this is a fit
case for granting bail.

¶32

6.On the other hand, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for
the Respondent-State and Mr. Vadgaonkar, learned Counsel
appearing for the Intervenor-Original Complainant strongly
opposed the Application. They submitted that there are about six
eye-witnesses to the incident. They submitted that chilli powder
has been recovered from the spot of offence in question. They
further stated that there is a recovery of clothes and that there is
presence of chilli powder on the said clothes. They submitted that
the deceased was assaulted and he succumbed to the resultant
injuries. They submitted that the Applicants have played a major
role in the offence in question and therefore bail be not granted.

¶33

7. Perusal of the prosecution case as contained in the Charge-

¶34

sheet and Statement recorded during the investigation shows that
this is a case of road rage. The incident has prima facie occurred in

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶37

a spur of the moment. The date of incident is 22nd May 2023. The
Applicants were arrested on 24th May 2023 and the Charge-sheet
has been filed on 19th August 2023. Thus, the investigation is
completed. Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants submitted that the trial has not yet commenced and
even the charge is also not yet framed. As per the prosecution case
and list of witnesses annexed to the Charge-sheet, there are 26
witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. The trial is
unlikely to conclude any time soon and is likely to take a
considerably long time.

¶38

8.There are no criminal antecedents against the present
Applicants. The Applicants are women. The Applicant No.2 is a
senior citizen aged 64 years and the Applicant No.1 is aged 58
years.

¶39

9.Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants
states that as several witnesses are residing in the same locality as
that of the Applicants, the Applicants will therefore not reside
within Solapur district and that the Applicants will reside at C/o.
Pratiksha Kate, Aditya Apartment, S.N. 7/2, Plot No.3, 1st Floor,

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶42

Flat No.6, Kadam Plaza, Pune-Satara Road, Opposite Bharti
Hospital, Katraj, Pune – 411 046.

¶43

10. The Applicants do not appear to be at risk of flight.

¶44

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

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

(a) The Applicants-Shantabai alias Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Vijaya alias Vijubai Pandurang Jadhav be released on bail in connection with C. R. No.448 of 2023 registered with the Sangola Police Station, TalukaSangola, District-Solapur on their furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

¶47

(b) The Applicants shall not enter the Solapur district after being released on bail, except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if called and for attending the trial.

¶48

Page 6 of 8

¶49

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶50

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

¶51

(d)The Applicants shall report to the Bharti Vidyapeeth
Police Station, Katraj, District-Pune once every month,
on first Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till
the conclusion of the trial. The Police Inspector of
Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Katraj, District-Pune
to communicate details thereof to the Investigating
Officer.

¶52

(e) The Applicants 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.

¶53

(f) The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

906-BA-3186-2023.DOC
Sonali

¶56

witnesses in any manner.

¶57

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

¶58

(h) The Applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to

¶59

the Investigating Officer.

¶60

12.The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶61

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima facie and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and

¶62

uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶63

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶64

Signed by: Sonali Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/02/2024 18:43:00

¶65

Page 8 of 8

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantabai @ Shanta Shivaji Pawar and Anr. 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

Janardhan Arvind Parulekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Balu Dalavi Vs State of Maharashtra

Dayanand Rajendra Londhe Vs State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Mahesh Sitaram Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Samir Mohan Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Pradip Dattatray Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra