CNR
MHNS010049842022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1159/2022.

[ Bunty Nivrutti Kapse Vs. State ]

This is first bail application moved by the applicant accused Bunty Nivrutti Kapse for releasing him on bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., after the charge­sheet in connection with CR No.120/2022 registered with Adgaon Police Station, Nashik for the offence U/sec. 302, 143, 147, 323, 504 r/w sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered on 17.5.2022. Applicant­accused was arrested on 20.6.2022 and produced before the Court and remanded to Police custody till 23.6.2022 and thereafter remanded to Magisterial custody and since then he is in jail.

2.It is stated in the application that, the applicant­accused has no connection with the alleged crime. There is no evidence against him to assault the deceased and only allegations are made in the FIR. The alleged incident was taken place between 11.00 p.m. to 12.00 mid night hours and therefore, there is no eye witness. The applicant­accused went to the spot to intervene the quarrel and he has been falsely implicated in present crime. The applicant­accused himself has taken the deceased to the Hospital. The applicant­accused has previous enmity with Somnath Dagu Kapse and Sindhu Kapse and therefore, they have stated against him in their statement. He has resided far away from the house of accused No.1. The deceased was daughter of the brother of Sindhu Kapse and on the say of Sindhu Kapse compromise deed taken placed on 5.1.2022 between deceased Aarti and accused No.1. The investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed in this Court bearing Sessions Case No.392/2022. The applicant­accused has falsely implicated in this crime and the antecedent of the applicant­accused are clean. There is no evidence in charge­sheet against him. Hence, prayed for grant bail on the grounds set­out in the application.

3.Application is strongly opposed by the State by filing say/report Exh.4 and submitted that, offence is serious, applicantaccused and deceased are close relative and if the applicantaccused is released on bail, again there are chances of quarrel between them and again commit the offence and he may pressurized the witnesses. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

4.The learned counsel Shri. R.B. Adake submitted that applicant­accused has been implicated falsely. The applicantaccused has no role in commission of the offence and just because of relatives he has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no allegation against him of assault to the deceased. He submitted that there is no evidence in the charge­sheet and therefore, prayed to allow the bail application.

5.The learned APP Shri. R.Y. Suryvanshi submitted that the applicant­accused and the deceased are close relatives and she is present on the spot and had taken active role in assault the deceased. There is sufficient material against the applicant­accused about his involvement in the crime. If the applicant­accused released on bail, he may pressurized the witnesses also tamper the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application.

6.I have carefully gone through the entire charge­sheet and particularly the role attributed to the present applicantaccused. The eye witnesses to the incident are stating that the present applicant­accused was present alongwith other accused at the scene of occurrence and was assaulting the deceased. Though, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by weapon spade, which was allegedly used by the accused No.1 in commission of the crime. However, considering the fact that applicant­accused was member of unlawful assembly and had actively taken part of assault to the deceased and therefore, the applicant­accused has shared common object with the accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased who was cornered by all the accused and beaten her mercilessly. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence in the chargesheet against the applicant­accused, who shared common object with the accused No.1. More so, the witnesses are common relatives of the deceased as well as the accused and therefore, there are chances that applicant­accused may pressurized the prosecution witnesses and which will hamper the trial of the present case.

Therefore, no case for bail is made out. Hence, present application is devoid of merit. Hence, following order.

O R D E R
1) Bail application No.1159/2022 is hereby rejected.

2) Inform concerned police station.

Digitally signed by SHINDE SHINDE MADHAV A MADHAV A Date: 2022.10.19 18:08:13 +0530 ( M. A. Shinde ) Date­ 19.10.2022 Additional Sessions Judge­ 9, Nashik.