Dinesh Laxman Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

A.M. Badar, J

Heard.

Admit.

Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

By this Appeal, the Appellant/Accused is challenging the order passed below Exh.43 in Special Atrocity Sessions Case No. 19 of 2015 by learned

Special Judge, Pune on 01.08.2016. The Applicant along with other accused persons is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,

341, 363 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 32B, 33 of Bombay Money Lenders Act and Sections 3[1][i][vi] [2][v] of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He argued that co-accused Mayur Ghule having similar role has already been released by this

Court by order dated 06.10.2015 passed in Bail Application No. 1219 of 2015. The learned Counsel further argued that no overt act of dousing

deceased with petrol and setting him ablaze is attributed to the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant who is behind the bars for more than 4 to 5 years

needs to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Counsel appearing for Respondent/victim vehemently opposed the Appeal by contending that bail is

granted to the co-accused as his name was not figuring in the FIR which is infact the Dying Declaration of deceased Anil Khirsagar. It is further

argued that recording of evidence in the Special Case has already begun and therefore, considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the

Appellant, he is not entitled to bail. They supported the impugned order of the learned Special Judge, Pune.

We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the record made available. Undisputedly, we have also noted the fact that on earlier

occasion, application for bail moved by the Appellant before this Court was withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2016 passed in Criminal Bail Application

No. 1760 of 2016 as charge was framed and therefore, liberty was granted to the Appellant to approach the concerned Court.

Undisputedly, co-accused Mayur Ghule had preferred Bail Application No. 1219 of 2015 before this Court and same was allowed on 06.10.2016 by

learned Single Judge with the following reasons:

“6. Perused the charge-sheet,in particular, the statements of the deceased i.e. 1st and 2nd dying declarations, statements of vendors, spot

panchanama and the statement of the mother. Admittedly, the name of the present applicant does not find place in the complaint which is later treated

as a dying declaration. The first dying declaration is consistent with the disclosure made to the brother and mother by the deceased. In the second

dying declaration, the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased and has been named for the first time. Infact, the main role is attributed to

Dhananjay Ghule, who is alleged to have poured petrol on the deceased and set him on fire. No motive is alleged as against the applicant. There are

no antecedents against the applicant. Even otherwise, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. “

Allegations against the Appellant as well as co-accused are to the effect that victim was abducted on 22.01.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. from Bhaji

mandai of Hadapsar and subsequently, by pouring petrol on his person he came to be set ablaze. Anil Khirsagar died on 27.01.2015. First Dying

Declaration of Anil came to be recorded on 22.01.2015 i.e. on the day of incident, which is recorded by Police Sub-Inspector. In the said Dying

Declaration, the deceased has declared that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from Accused Dhananjay Ghule with whom he was serving

as Driver. After leaving that employment, accused Dhananjay used to force him to return that amount. Deceased Anil has declared that he was

abducted on 22.01.2015 by Appellant Dinesh Chavan along with Dhananjay and one more person. He was taken to Mohamaad Wadi. After assaulting

him at that place, accused persons took him to the office at Kadnagar, where he was made to consume liquor and was assaulted there. Electric shock

was given to him by using wire of motorcycle. Thereafter, at about 5.30 p.m., he was set ablaze by accused Dhananjay Ghule by pouring petrol on his

person.

The second Dying Declaration of Anil came to be recorded on 23.01.2015 by Police Inspector in presence of Resident Doctor of Sassoon hospital

who certified that the deceased was conscious and in condition to give statement. Further in second Dying Declaration, deceased Anil had clarified

the name of unknown persons as Mayur. The averments against Appellant as well as Mayur are to the effect that they along with co-accused

Dhananjay had beaten Anil by means of wooden handle of “Tikauâ€. Neither Mayur, nor Appellant are given role of pouring petrol or setting

deceased Anil ablaze. In other words, averments against co-accused Mayur and Appellant are identical and as co-accused Mayur is released on bail

by this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant also deserves similar treatment.

In the light of this fact, we are unable to sustain the impugned order of rejection of bail to the Appellant passed on 01.08.2016 by the learned

Special Judge, Pune. Therefore, the order.

ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed.

ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge Pune below Exhibit No. 43 in Special Atrocity Sessions Case No. 19 of 2015 is quashed

and set aside.

iii) The Bail Application at Exh. 43 moved by the Appellant/accused is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail on executing PR Bond of

Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

iv) The appellant shall attend the Kondhwa Police Station, Pune on the first Saturday between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. till the conclusion of the trial;

(v) The appellant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

(vi) The appellant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or

mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

(vii) The appellant to cooperate with the conduct of the trial;

(viii) If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the appellant's bail.

(ix) Appeal is disposed of accordingly.