..1..

Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Appln. No. 618/2022
CNRNo.MHNS010023962022
Gokul Tongal Sonawane & 2 others Vs. State.
Heard:
1.

Ld.Adv. Mr. A.G. Patil for the applicants.
Ld. APP Ms. R. Y. Jadhav for the State.
I. O. present.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in Crime No.59/2022 registered at Police station
Deola, Dist. Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 143,
147, 149 & 302 r./w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.
2.

It is the case of prosecution in brief that accused No. 4
(applicant No. 2) had a love­affair with the deceased since the past
couple of years. However, her father (accused No.1/applicant No.1)
did not approve of their relationship. Therefore, accused No. 4 and
the deceased had stopped talking to each­other since 4 months prior
to the incident. The family members of accused No. 4 were looking
for other alliances for her and had even fixed her marriage elsewhere.
The said engagement was called off by her fiancé due to which her
family members (co­accused) started suspecting that the deceased
was responsible for the same and that he had disclosed about his love­
affair with accused No. 4 to her fiancé. On the date of the incident,
all the accused met the applicant in the market place wherein accused
No. 2 and 3 assaulted him with iron rods (while accused No. 1 held
..2..

both the hands of the victim) and caused him head injury. He
scrambled for his life and fled to a nearby mobile store. However, the
accused did not relent and continued to assault him. Thereafter,
accused No. 5 (applicant No. 3) poured petrol on him, while accused
No. 4 threw a lighted match­stick on him. The accused sustained
burn as well as head injuries and succumbed to them two days after
being admitted in the hospital. Initially, the offence was registered
under Sec.307 r./w. Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. However, after the death of
the victim, Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. was invoked.
3.

Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that
investigation is over and charge­sheet has been filed. The applicants
herein have been falsely implicated. A specific role has been
deliberately assigned to each accused purely with a view to rope in
every member of the family.

The deceased had tried to defame
accused No. 4 by circulating her videos and photographs to her
prospective grooms and was not allowing her alliance to be fixed
anywhere. It is only accused No. 2 and 3, i.e., brothers of accused
No.4 who had gone to meet the so­called victim. In fact, the victim
himself poured petrol on himself and set himself ablaze. Applicants
are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court.
No purpose will be served by keeping the applicants behind bars. The
previous bail application of these applicants was rejected when
investigation was still in progress and charge­sheet was yet to be filed.
4.

In order to buttress his contentions further, he has relied
on the following citations :
(i)
Sureah Irappa Hatti V/s. State of Maharashtra, LAWS
..3..

(BOM)­2004­7­24. In this matter, it has been held by the
Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that
filing
of
charge­sheet
is
a
substantial
change
of
circumstance since the accused becomes better­equipped to
address the court and invite the court to examine the
evidence after filing of the charge­sheet from his point of
view and to point out lacunae, if any, in the investigation,
which could be fatal to the prosecution or sufficient enough
to convince the court that there exists reasonable grounds
for, prima­facie, believing that the applicant has not been
guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life.
(ii) In an unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, dated 24th January, 2020 in Criminal
Appeal No. 153 of 2020 (Prabhakar Tewari V/s. State of
U.P. & Anr.). In this matter, guidelines have been laid
down for grounds for cancellation of bail.
5.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has opposed the bail application on
the ground that there is prima­facie case against the applicants.
Offence is serious in nature and is punishable by life imprisonment/
death. Specific role has been assigned and attributed each accused.
The argument that the deceased had himself poured petrol on his own
person is contrary to the material in the charge­sheet. The dying­
declaration of the deceased has categorically named each accused
with his/her respective role. In addition, there is direct as well as
circumstantial evidence. The statement of the mobile shop owner in
whose presence the offence took place is also on record. Blood­stained
..4..

and partially burnt clothes of all the accused have been seized. The
petrol can as well as the match­sticks have also been seized from the
spot. Blood as well as petrol have been recovered from the spot. The
oral argument of the Ld. Adv. for the applicants regarding their
innocence is entirely fictitious and not in consonance with the
material on record in the charge­sheet. If the applicants are released
on bail, there are chances of tampering with prosecution witnesses.
All the accused are prime accused. There is no change in
circumstances after the rejection of the previous bail application.
6.

In order to buttress her contentions further, she has relied
on the citation of Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. V/s. State of
Karnataka and Anr. 2017 CRI.L.J. 2769. In this matter, the Apex
Court has categorically held that filing of charge­sheet does not
amount to change in circumstances.
7.

Offence is heinous, has been committed brutally and is
punishable by life imprisonment/death. Perusal of the charge­sheet
indicates prima­facie case against the applicants. Perusal of the
photographs of the spot indicates that the glass partitions etc. in the
mobile phone shop have also been shattered.

Prima­facie, it does
appear that the offence was committed in a planned manner. There
are categoric allegations against each accused. Blood­stained clothes
have been recovered from all the accused.

Similarly, petrol can,
petrol, match­sticks as well as blood from the spot have also been
recovered. Dying­declaration of the victim is also on record wherein
specific role has been assigned to each accused. As far as the citation
in the case of Sureah (Supra) is concerned, it definitely lays down
..5..

that after the charge­sheet is filed, it does give an opportunity to the
accused to plead her/his case on a better footing since s/he can point
out to the Court whether a prima­facie case is made out
or not.

Therefore, as per the said judgment, perusal of the charge­sheet in the
case at hand makes out prima­facie case against the applicants. Even if
for the sake of argument if it is considered that filing of charge­sheet
is a change in circumstance, even then, the charge­sheet in the case at
hand makes out prima­facie case against the applicants in an offence
which is punishable by life imprisonment/death. The citation in the
case of Prabhakar (Supra) is not relevant since it deals with
cancellation of bail. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined
to reject the application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.

Nashik
09/06/2022
Digitally
signed by
MRIDULA
MRIDULA BHATIA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.06.10
11:10:09
+0530
M. V. Bhatia
District Judge­3 and Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nashik.