(1)
MHNS010035972020
Raju Ramdas Thombre
…
Applicant
V/s.
State through Ghoti police station, Tal. …
Igatpuri
Respondent
Order below Exh. 01 in Criminal Bail Application
No.1276/2020
1]
This is second application filed by accused No.4
U/Sec. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in
C.R. No.I77/2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302, 506,
201 and 120 (b) r/w. 34 of I.P.C. registered with Ghoti police
station.
2]
The criminal law was set in motion on the basis of
complaint filed by PHC Gosavi, B.No.749 who found one de
composed body of male person in the forest area of Ondali
Shivar. Deceased Pandit Dhavalu Phadake who was missing
since 01/06/2020 and missing complaint to that effect was
lodged by his father. It was also transpired during the course of
investigation that deceased was having love affair with the
daughter of accused No.1. She was not happy with the said
relation. She arranged marriage of daughter with some other
person to be performed on 07/06/2020. Accused No.1 was
apprehending some nuisance/disturbance at the hands of
(2)
deceased during performance of the marriage. Accordingly,
accused Nos. 2 and 3 took deceased on motor bike on the
pretext to give party in the forest area. They consumed liquor
and thereafter, accused Nos.4 and 5 took active part by holding
hands and legs of deceased. Accused No.2 is alleged to have
strangulated deceased. Thereafter, accused Nos. 2 to 5 screened
the evidence by throwing dead body in deep bushes in the
forest.
3]
It is contention of applicant/accused No.3 that his
previous application was rejected mainly on the ground that
investigation is at preliminary stage. Now, the investigation is
completed and charge sheet is filed against accused. It is further
contended that nothing is recovered or seized at the behest of
this
applicant.
The
only
allegation
made
against
applicant/accused is that he was one of the person who was
seen along with accused No.2 who took deceased in forest area
on the date of incident. It is further contended that there is no
evidence to connect present applicant/accused with the
conspiracy or commission of offence. The name of present
applicant is disclosed by one witness who state to have seen
present applicant along with accused No.2 prior to more than
one month in the company of deceased. Applicant is young boy
and recently married. His family is dependent on him. He is
having permanent residence at villageKhambalewadi, Tal.
Igatpuri. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed for his
release on bail. He therefore prays to allow application.
(3)
4]
Prosecution opposed the application on the ground
that all accused hatched conspiracy and accordingly, accused
Nos. 2 and 3 took deceased in the forest. He was strangulated by
accused No.2. The present applicant has taken part in screening
of the evidence with the help of other accused.
5]
Heard Advocate Shri. A.A.Kardile for applicant and
learned APP Smt. Gore for prosecution.
6]
I have gone through the FIR and the report of
Investigating Officer. The dispute started on account of alleged
love affair of deceased with the daughter of accused No.1. The
marriage of daughter of accused No.1 was fixed on 07/06/2020.
Accused apprehend nuisance at the hands of deceased and
therefore hatched conspiracy and strangulated him in the forest
area. The role attributed to the present applicant that he was
seen along with accused No.2 who took deceased in the forest
area. The prosecution alleged that he helped in screening of the
evidence with the help of other accused. Except this, no other
role is attributed to the present applicant. As stated above, the
chargesheet is already filed in the court. Having regard to the
nature of accusations made against accused and the role
attributed to the present applicant/accused, he can be enlarged
on bail by imposing certain conditions. One of the accused i.e.
accused No.4 is enlarged on bail in Criminal Bail Application
No.1044/2020. The advocate for applicant submits that except
extra judicial confession of the coaccused, there is no other
evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. He submits
(4)
that said part of evidence is subject to test of crossexamination
during the course of trial. There are no eye witnesses to the
incident. In support of his submission, he relied on case of Ravi
R. s/o. Ramu V/s. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition
No.589/2017 decided on 21/09/2017.
7]
As submitted by Advocate for applicant, the only role
attributed to the present applicant is that he accompanied
accused No.2 who took deceased in the forest area. So far as
other accused are concerned, specific role of active participation
is made against them. Having regard to the same and in the
light of above circumstances, the application deserves to be
allowed. In the result, I pass following order:
ORDER
1]
Application is allowed.
2]
Applicant Raju Ramdas Thombre is released on his
furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/ (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount.
3]
Applicant not to tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
4]
Applicant to attend trial regularly.
5]
Bail before learned J.M.F.C.
6]
Inform concerned accordingly.
Date:16th Oct., 2020.
Nashik.
Pradeep
Bhimrao
Ghuge
Digitally signed
by Pradeep
Bhimrao Ghuge
Date: 2020.10.16
13:49:09 +0530
(P.B.Ghuge)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Nashik.