Bhushan S/O Suresh Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Janephal, Buldhana

¶1

437 ba472.25

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.472/2025 Bhushan s/o Suresh Kharat

¶5

..vs..

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO PS Janephal, Buldhana

¶7

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri Nitin Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶9

CORAM	:URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON	:15/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON	:21/07/2025

¶10

By this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.204/2024 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences under Sections 302 and 365 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶11

2. The applicant came to be arrested on 11.7.2024 and since then he is in jail.

¶12

The crime is registered on the basis of a report

¶13

.....2/-

¶14

437 ba472.25

¶15

¶16

lodged by Jyoti Dilip Ingle, the wife of the deceased,
alleging that her husband was working as a “Money Rain
Pourer”. On 22.6.2024, at around 3:00 pm, he left the
house by informing her that he is travelling to Ahmednagar
for the work related to money rain accompanied by the
applicant and one Sandip Shewale, but he did not return
until 27.6.2024 and, therefore, she lodged missing report
27.6.2024. During enquiry of the missing report, it

¶17

revealed that her husband has left in “Swift Desire Car MH-
03/BH/1824 along with the applicant and Sheikh Sajid
Sheikh. They travelled to Shirdi and were waiting at
Nashik Fata. At around 7:00 pm, another car arrived with
three unknown individuals. The informant was informed
by Sandip Shewal, who was along with the deceased, that
the deceased informed that he is proceeding at Kokandhan
for the said money rain event. Thus, said Sandip and the
deceased proceeded in the vehicle. The applicant was also
along with them. At around 10:30 to 11:00 pm, when they

¶18

reached near SJS Hospital, another four-wheeler

¶19

.....3/-

¶20

437 ba472.25

¶21

¶22

approached them and 4-5 persons got down from the
vehicle and assaulted her husband. They forcibly took him
in their vehicle and abducted him. Subsequently, the dead
body of the deceased was found at Rashin-Karjat and,
therefore, the offence was registered on the basis of the
report lodged by the wife of the deceased alleging against
the other co-accused.

¶23

During investigation, involvement of the applicant revealed in the conspiracy and, therefore, he is also arraigned as an accused.

¶24

5. Heard learned counsel Shri S.V.Sirpurkar for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
Nitin Rode for the State.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Except
the statement of co-accused, not a single circumstance is on
record to prima facie establish involvement of the applicant
in the conspiracy. Though the applicant allegedly is

¶26

.....4/-

¶27

437 ba472.25

¶28

¶29

involved in the assault on the deceased, no circumstance is
on record to show that his involvement was in the assault
and he was part of the conspiracy. Now, investigation is
completed and chargesheet is filed. Hence, the applicant
deserves to be released on bail.

¶30

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State submitted that the deceased and one Amol
Rajput were involved in the activity like money rain and
some dispute arose between the deceased and said Amol on
account of money transaction. Therefore, said Amol
hatched conspiracy with co-accused Sandip and the other
co-accused. As per the conspiracy, the deceased was taken
by the applicant and other co-accused at Kopargaon
whereat they are contacted by the persons who came in
another vehicle. Thereafter, the deceased was taken at
Kokandhan for the event of money rain. At Kokandhan, in
one vehicle, four persons came there and assaulted the
deceased and the deceased was taken in the vehicle and,

¶31

.....5/-

¶32

437 ba472.25

¶33

¶34

thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found.

¶35

As far as the applicant is concerned, he came in

¶36

the another vehicle along with the other co-accused along
with weapons. The involvement of the applicant revealed
from the statement of one Pawan Anil Palaskar, who runs a
shop at Kolhar (Burd), taluka Rahata, district Ahmednagar,
which shows that the applicant has purchased six fiber logs
from his shops. The said fiber logs are seized at the
instance of the co-accused Babu Maroti, which were alleged
weapons used in assaulting the deceased.

¶37

In addition to that, the CDRs on record

¶38

show that on the day of the incident, i.e. 22.6.2024, the
location of the applicant was seen to be at Taluka Rahata,
district Ahmednagar from 83852 to 85037. The dead
body of the deceased was found at Karjat, district
Ahmednagar.

¶39

Thus, involvement of the applicant in the alleged

¶40

incident reveals from these two circumstances.

¶41

.....6/-

¶42

437 ba472.25

¶43

¶44

The case diary entry shows that the applicant is
resident of Khandala, district Satara. The said weapons are
already forwarded for the chemical analysis. The report of
the Chemical Analysis is yet to be received.

¶45

In view of that, he prays for rejection of the
application.

¶46

8. After hearing both the sides and perusing the
investigation papers, the involvement of the applicant
reveals on the basis of statement of Pawan Anil Palaskar
and CDRs. The statements of witnesses further reveal that
there was enmity between co-accused Amol and the
deceased on account of money transaction. On the say of
this co-accused Amol, the deceased was taken in vehicle by
the co-accused. There were continuous communications
with conspirator Amol and other co-accused and the
deceased and co-accused Amol.

¶47

9. As far as circumstance showing involvement of
the applicant is concerned, the same shows that the

¶48

.....7/-

¶49

437 ba472.25

¶50

¶51

deceased was taken in taluka Rahata, Kopargaon district.
The location of the applicant on the relevant date
22.6.2024 was also shown to be at taluka Rahata. The
statement of one Pawan Palaskar resident of Kolar (Burd),
taluka Rahata shows that the applicant has purchased the
fiber logs from his shop and receipt thereof is also on
record.

¶52

10. Admittedly, direct evidence would not be
available as far as conspiracy is concerned. The
circumstances show the applicant and other co-accused
went with the deceased, communication between the co-
accused and the applicant and other co-accused, statements
of the witnesses showing the meeting of the applicant, and
other co-accused prior to the incident, and CDRs etc..

¶53

11. As far as the applicant is concerned, these two
circumstances sufficiently show his involvement in the
alleged incident.

¶54

Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance

¶55

.....8/-

¶56

437 ba472.25

¶57

¶58

on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Jalendra Sarswati Swamigal vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2005)2 SCC 13 wherein it is held that
considerations normally weigh with the Court in granting
bail in non-bailable offences have been explained, basically
they are, the nature and seriousness of the offence; the
character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of
the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger
interest of the public or the State, and other similar factors
which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

¶59

He further placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman Prasad vs. State
of Maharashtra, reported in SCC OnLine SC 743 wherein
after re-appreciation of the evidence, it is held that as per
the settled law, in case of circumstantial evidence, chain

¶60

.....9/-

¶61

437 ba472.25

¶62

¶63

has to be completed in all respects as to indicate guilt of
accused.

¶64

He further placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat and anr, reported
in (2019)16 SCC 547 wherein issue as to confessional
statements of co-accused, when not corroborated by
material evidence, the proceeding is quashed.

¶65

On going through the entire decisions, considerations for bail are required to be looked into.

¶66

There is no dispute that the deceased died homicidal death. The manner in which the death is caused shows gravity of offence. The circumstances, that the applicant purchased the weapons and receipt thereof bears his name and CDRs show his location at Rahatala, from which place the deceased was taken, at this stage, are sufficient to show his involvement in the alleged incident.

¶67

Thus, considering gravity of the offence, the

¶68

.....10/-

¶69

437 ba472.25

¶70

¶71

application deserves to be rejected and it is rejected.

¶72

Application stands disposed of.

¶73

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶74

!! BrWankhede !!

¶75

...../-

Bhushan S/O Suresh Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Janephal, Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan S/O Suresh Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Janephal, Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh Madanmohan Yelne Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara

Suraj Jalinder Khare Vs State of Maharashtra Thr D.G.P. Buldhana for Pso Buldhana

Anmol Yadavrao Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Jaripatka, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur

Mukesh S/O Hari Butani vs State of Maha Thr the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Amrvati Division No 3

Vineet Ashok Jain vs Sunil Sohanlalji Ajmera

Shubhendra Maroti Nyaymurti Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Lakhani Police Station, Dist. Bhandara