..1..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11)
NASHIK
Criminal Bail Application No.593 of 2022
1.
2.
3.
Dnyneshwar Hari Gavit
Age 45 yrs., Occ: Labour
Savaliram Tulshiram Gavit
Age 50 Yrs., Occ: Labour.
Kamlakar Sitaram Chavan
Age 35 yrs., Occ: Labour
All r/o. Umbarpada,
Tal. Surgana, Dist. Nashik.
…Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Surgana Police Station.
(Cr. No.19/2022)
…Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1.
1.
The applicants/accused have filed this application for grant
of bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.19 of 2022 of
Surgana Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 353,
332, 333, 427, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
2.
The facts in brief of the case are as under:
On 09/05/2022 at about 9.30 p.m. when the informant
who is a Forest Officer was discharging his official duty in Umbarthan
Forest Area
Kukadne bit 2, he saw that accused Lalji Topale was
illegally transporting Khair timber in his tractor. So when the informant
stopped his tractor and tried to arrest him, at that time the present
applicants had been on the spot and they assaulted the informant and
..2..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
his 3 colleagues with stones, batons etc. Thereafter the colleagues of the
informant ran from the said place whereas the informant was severely
assaulted by the accused. Hence, as the accused have obstructed the
informant and assaulted him while discharging his official duty, so the
report.
3.
The applicants by this application have contended that they
are falsely implicated in this offence and no such incident as alleged in
the report has taken place. Moreover, the present applicants were not
present on the spot and were called there by accused Lalji Topale for his
help as the informant and his colleagues were assaulting him. So they
had been on the spot and they tried to save accused Lalji, but they were
assaulted by the informant and his colleagues. They are not involved in
the offence. Moreover, investigation is completed and so there is no
reason to keep them behind bars. They have no criminal antecedents.
So it is prayed that they be released on bail.
4.
The APP and I.O. have contested this bail application by
filing pusis and say vide Exh.5 and 6. It is contended that the injured
victim is still taking treatment in the hospital. The other unknown
accused are yet to be arrested and so if the applicants are released on
bail, they will helped them and it will be difficult to trace out those
unknown accused. So considering the gravity of offence, it is prayed
that application be rejected.
5.
The informant Ramaji Kuvar who is the victim in this crime
has appeared and filed his objection on this application vide Exh.11. It
is contended that he was brutally assaulted by the applicants and other
coaccused while discharging his official duty. He was assaulted by a
..3..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
mob of near about 30 to 40 persons and was dragged at nearby village
where 60 to 70 other persons have assaulted him and as he was rescued
by the government officer his life was saved. The applicants are
influential persons and this fact can be seen from the fact that though
he has narrated the incident immediately, FIR was registered after 10
hours by police and that to only against 4 accused. Hence, considering
the same and for aforestated reasons it is submitted that the application
be rejected.
6.
Heard Ld. Adv. Ghumare for the applicants. He argued that
these applicants were not involved in illegally transporting Khair wood.
Whereas, they had been to the spot as accused Lalji has telephone them
while he was assaulted by the informant and his colleagues. So to help
him they had been on the spot but they were also assaulted by the
informants and his colleagues. Some 30 persons were gathered on the
spot as accused no.1 was from their village, but none of them have
assaulted the informant as alleged. They are falsely implicated in this
crime. So he argued that applicants be released on bail.
7.
Per contra, Ld. APP Smt. Patil and Adv. Shingada for victim
argued that in the present matter a mob of 30 to 40 persons have
assaulted the informant and his colleagues only due to the fact that the
informant while discharging his official duty as Forest Officer has
caught accused no.1 Lalji while unauthorizedly transporting Khair wood
from the forest. Moreover, 60 to 70 villagers have also assaulted the
informant whereas his colleagues had ran away from the spot in order
to save their lives and lateron have informed their officers who rescued
the informant. So it is argued that, considering the gravity of the
offence and the fact that public servant was brutally assaulted while
..4..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
discharging his official duty, the application be rejected. Also in order to
maintain law and order the application be rejected.
8.
Considered the arguments. The Ld. Advocate for informant
in support of his contention that the vicitim has right to participate in
the proceeding has relied on the case of Jagjit Singh V/s. Ashish
Mishra AIR online 2022 SC 552. Gone through the case law wherein
the Hon’ble S.C. has held that a victim has a legally vested right to be
heard at every step post the occrence of an offence. Moreover, in this
case Ld. incharge court has given permission to the victim to assist the
prosecution by passing order to that effect below Exh.7.
9.
In view of the rival contentions, it has come on record that
counter cases are filed in connection with the present crime. The
present crime is registered by the Forest Officer, whereas another crime
i.e. CR No. 54.2022 is registered by the accused no.1 Lalji Topale
against the present informant and his 3 colleagues. So the fact that can
be gathered is that, admittedly some incident has occurred between
both the parties on the relevant day and time.
10.
The present applicants have alleged that they were not
involved in transporting Khair wood illegally. Per contra, the incident
took place as the informant has forced the accused no.1 Lalji to
transport some woods in his truck. But as he refused to do so, he was
assaulted by the informant and his colleagues. Lateron, the present
applicants had been on the spot to save accused Lalji but they were also
assaulted. However, it is also admitted that a mob of 30 to 40 persons
gathered on the spot. If their case is considered as it is, that accused
no.1 Lalji was not transporting illegally Khair wood from forest, but
..5..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
from the documents on record it can be seen that crime is registered
against accused no.1 by the Forest officers for illegally transporting
Khair wood from forest. So the case of applicants does not appear to be
believable, per contra prima facie at this state the contentions in the FIR
on this point appears to be justified.
11.
As discussed above it has come on record that a mob of 30
to 40 persons were gathered on the spot only to help accused no.1 Lalji.
Whereas, the report prima facie shows that the present applicants
alongwith accused Lalji have assaulted the informant as well as his
colleagues and have pelted stones on them. So due to the fear the
colleagues of the informant who are also injured ran away from the said
spot in order to save their life. Lateron, the motorcycle of the informant
was damaged by them and he was dragged towards the Ambarpada
village and their also he was assaulted. So it can be seen that prima
facie there is direct material to infer involvement of the present
applicants in the offence.
12.
The applicants are also admitting the presence of mob of
30 to 40 persons on the spot, but admittedly FIR is only against the
present applicants and Lalji Topale. Moreover, it has come on record
that the informant was hospitalized and was taking treatment for
nearabout 17 days. Investigation is at initial stage and according to I.O.
other unknown accused are yet to be traced out. So considering the
same prima facie at this initial stage it will not be justified to release the
present applicants on bail. Whereas considering the gravity of the
offence and fact that an public servant was brutally assaulted while
discharging his official duty, it will not be justified to allow this
application when the investigation is at threshold.
..6..
13.
Cri. Bail Appln. No.593/22
As aforestated considering the number of unknown accused
involved in this offence, the apprehension of prosecution is justified
that, if applicants are released on bail it will be difficult to trace out
them. Also the possibility of pressurizing the witnesses cannot be ruled
out. Hence, for the aforestated reasons I held that, prima facie from the
report the presence of the applicants on the spot is proved and there is
sufficient material to show their direct involvement in the offence. So
considering the said fact and as the investigation is at initial stage, it
will not be justified to allow the present application. So I proceed to
pass following order.
ORDER
Application for bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:01/06/2022
Nashik.
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date: 2022.06.02
17:30:54 +0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.