Shri Ajit Kambli, Presently in the Judicial Custody, Through his Wife Smt. Ankita Kambli vs State

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard. The applicant herein has approached this Court for bail, after the same has been denied to him, by order dated 13/10/2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa.

The applicant, along with several others, have been arrested in Crime No.126/2010 of Anjuna Police Station under Sections 302, 120B r/w 34 IPC. The applicant was arrested on 23/09/2010 and since then is in custody. The investigations of the case are still in progress. The said crime came to be registered upon a complaint dated 22/09/2010 filed by Chandrakant Malvankar on account of the death of his son Sampreet Malvankar. The said Sampreet Malvankar was shot dead on 22/09/2010 at about 9.00 hrs. in the restaurant run by the said father and son duo known as "Monkey Bar and Restaurant" situated at Anjuna.

The first informant Chandrakant Malvankar and his son Sampreet Malvankar have been charged, and are being tried for the murder of one Sagar Salgaonkar, who is the brother of another accused by name Tukaram alias Nana Salgaonkar, who is in judicial custody in Mumbai having been arrested in connection with the NDPS case and who had attended the funeral of the said Sagar Salgaonkar. The applicant herein is their maternal uncle. The said murder took place on 18/11/2009.

The murder case against the complainant and his son, the deceased Sampreet Malvankar (Criminal Case No.100/2009, Sessions Case No.10/2010) was also fixed on the same day before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, on which day the present murder took place. Another accused stated to be involved is one Harish R. Mandvikar, who is again in judicial custody in Mumbai in connection with several murder cases. Several accused have been arrested.

The present murder of the said Sampreet Malvankar, according to the prosecution, was to take the revenge on account of the murder of the said Sagar Salgaonkar. It appears that the release on bail of Chandrakant and his son Sampreet in Criminal Case No.100/2009 was not taken kindly by the family of the said deceased Sagar Salgaonkar. The applicant herein is the maternal uncle of Srikant Salgaonkar, Dattaram Salgaonkar, Laxman Salgaonkar, Yogesh Salgaonkar, Tukaram alias Nana Salgaonkar, who have been arrested in connection with the investigations of this case. The murder appears to have been carried out by hiring another person whose description has been ascertained, identity and address established, as stated by the Investigation Officer, and efforts are being made to arrest him. In other words, the main accused who was engaged to do away with the said Sampreet Malvankar on account of the murder of Sagar Salgaonkar is still at large and is yet to be arrested and if arrested is bound to facilitate further investigations of this case which is still under investigations.

Be that as it may, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rejected the application for bail considering the seriousness of the offences so as to give sufficient opportunity to the investigating agency to go to the root of the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that:

At the outset, it is apparent from the records that there is rivalry between the applicant, other co-accused and the family of the deceased. Records of the case papers also reveal that the complainant Chandrakant has in his complain named the applicant as one of the accused and even in his supplementary statement recorded later he has stated that some days before Sampreet was killed he had seen the applicant and other co-accused in the shop of one Dattaram. The above statement of complainant also stands supported by the statement of Rohidas Fadte who too has stated of having seen the applicant and the other co-accused in a group talking to one unknown person. It is further apparent from the statement of Shri Anthony Britto that at the time of final rites of Sagar Salgaonkar he had heard Tukaram alias Nana who is in the custody of Mumbai Police saying that he would not leave the culprits of Sagar. Undoubtedly, the complainant herein i.e. Shri Chandrakant and the deceased Sampreet are/were the accused in the case of murder of Shri Sagar. Since in the case at hand the charge levelled against the applicant and other co-accused is of conspiracy to kill Sampreet, for which direct evidence is seldom available, in my view considering the seriousness of the offence and the evidence so far collected by the investigating agency, sufficient opportunity should be given to them to go to the root of the matter.

The plan of action appears to have been drawn in judicial custody at Mumbai where the said Tukaram alias Nana Salgaonkar (NDPS accused) and Harish Mandvikar (murder accused) are stated to have been lodged in connection with the cases pending against them and that plan or conspiracy was executed in Goa and the investigations carried out so far do indicate a great deal of suspicion regarding the complicity of the present applicant in facilitating the said murder.

Shri Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that if the conspiracy was hatched in Mumbai, the knowledge of conspiracy on the part of the applicant would not be sufficient to detain him further. Counsel further submits that the applicant is not a party to the conspiracy and that it is not the case of the investigating agency that the applicant is involved in the commission of the said murder though learned Counsel concedes that the applicant is implicated to some extent by Dinesh M. Kanojia, yet another accused, who has been arrested in this case. Learned Counsel further submits that Suraj Govekar, another accused arrested in connection with this murder is the nephew of applicant Ajit Kambli and stays along with him. Learned Counsel further submits that the material collected thus far is not sufficient to detain the applicant any further.

I am not inclined to entertain this application for bail at this stage as the investigations are still in progress, considering the seriousness, complexity and the character of some of the accused involved in the case. The investigating agency need to be given sufficient amount of time to complete the investigation. The main accused is still at large and his arrest is bound to facilitate further investigations and collection of material regarding the complicity of the present applicant as well as the other accused. For the present it may be noted that the transaction which took place between the accused Dinesh M. Kanojia and Suraj Govekar in the house of the applicant could not have taken place without the knowledge or connivance of the applicant himself. The said accused Suraj Govekar is the nephew of the applicant and resides with the applicant. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present application at this stage when investigations are still in progress and main accused is yet to be arrested. The application is hereby dismissed.