..1..
MHNS010023772022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2022
Suman Hari Pawar
Age 77 Yrs., Occ: Agri.
R/o. Shivade Road, Pawarwadi,
At Post Pandhurli, Sinnar,
Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.
… Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Sinnar Police Station,
Sinnar Dist. Nashik.
… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.
The applicant is having apprehension that she may be
arrested in connection with crime No.115/2022 of Sinnar Police station
for the offence punishable under Section 302, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of
I.P.C. Hence, she is seeking directions for grant of bail in the event of
her arrest in the said crime in view of Section 438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 28/02/2022 when
the informant had been to Nashik Court alongwith her husband in
connection with her work, she received phone call of her son Shailesh
who informed her that the accused Kailas alongwith other 13 to 14
peoples have forcefully entered in their house and are assaulting him.
So at about 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. when they were proceeding towards their
house they saw that their son Shailesh was crying on the road and after
removing his clothes they saw that he had burn injuries on his back. He
narrated that the accused Kailas and 13 to 14 other persons have
..2..
assaulted him by stick, kick and fist blows, whereas the accused Kailas
has thrown petrol on his body and has set him on fire. Whereas, the
present applicant Suman Pawar has twisted his penis. Thereafter they
took Shailesh to Hospital and during his treatment he succumbed to his
injuries on 01/03/2022. Hence, the report.
3.
The applicant has filed application seeking anticipatory bail
on the ground that she is falsely implicated in the offence. There is
delay of near about 25 days in lodging the report and so same itself to
sufficient to show that she is falsely involved in the offence due to the
long standing disputes between them. The report is lodged only on the
basis of hearsay information allegedly given by the deceased. There is
no discovery or recovery at the hands of applicant. The applicant is 77
years old and if she is arrested there is likelihood that her health will be
deteriorated. So it is prayed that she be released on anticipatory bail.
4.
The Ld. APP. has filed pursis vide Exh.7 and the
Investigation Officer has filed his say vide Exh.8 and has contested this
application stating that the offence is serious in nature. It is contended
that the present applicant alongwith other accused have brutally
assaulted the victim. The applicant is involved in the crime. The
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for investigation.
Also there is likelihood that if applicant is released on bail, she might
tamper with the witnesses. So it is prayed that the application be
rejected.
5.
Heard Ld. Adv. Kurkute for accused. He argued that there
is long standing dispute between the applicant and the informant’s
family. There is delay of 25 days in lodging the report and same is
sufficient to show that applicant is falsely implicated in this case due to
previous grudge. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents.
..3..
Per contra, the informant as well as the victim are having criminal
antecedents. There is no recovery of discovery at the hands of present
applicant. Moreover, the allegations against the applicant in the FIR
does not show direct nexus with the death of the victim. So considering
the age of the applicant it is argued that she be released on anticipatory
bail.
6.
The Ld. APP Smt. Patil on the other hand argued that the
contention in the FIR shows direct involvement of the present applicant
in the offence. The custodial interrogation of applicant is essential as
the offence charged is serious in nature. Hence, considering the gravity
of the offence and as the punishment prescribed for the same is death
sentence or life imprisonment, she argued that application be rejected.
7.
Considered the arguments. Gone through the FIR. The FIR
is lodged by the mother of the victim. From the contents in the FIR, it
can be seen that there is direct allegation against accused Kailas for
setting the victim on fire and also against the present applicant for
assaulting him and twisting his penis. It has prima facie come on record
that after the incident the victim who is 19 years old has succumbed to
the injuries on 01/03/2022 during his treatment.
8.
In view of the contentions in the FIR as aforestated it can
be seen that prima facie there is direct evidence against the present
applicant to show her involvement in the crime. So at this stage there is
prima facie sufficient material to say that the present applicant has
done some act in furtherance of common object of their unlawful
assembly. In this context it is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the
applicant that the role assigned to the present applicant in the offence is
limited. So considering her alleged role in the offence and her age the
present application be allowed.
..4..
9.
Considered the contentions. As aforestated in the FIR some
role is assigned to the present applicant. However, at this prima facie
stage when the crime is registered under Section 143, 147, 148 r.w. 149
of I.P.C. the role of each and every accused cannot be bifurcated and
isolated from each other. Moreover, the present application is filed
under 438 of IPC seeking protection from arrest. So it is essential to see
that whether custodial interrogation of the present applicant is
essential. On this point it is admitted fact that investigation is at initial
stage. There are direct and specific allegations against the present
applicant and other accused Kailas. Whereas it is also alleged that they
both were accompanied with some 13 to 14 unknown persons. Hence,
from these allegations in the FIR and considering the specific role
assigned to the present applicant at this initial stage her custodial
interrogation is necessary.
10.
The applicant has also sought anticipatory bail on the
ground that she is falsely implicated and the same can be seen from the
delay in lodging the FIR. Considered the contention. The record shows
that the alleged incident has occurred on 28/02/2022 and report is
lodged on 25/03/2022. So there is delay of near about 25 days in
lodging report as contended by the applicant. However, at this initial
state only due to the long standing disputes between the parties, it
cannot be concluded and said that the applicant is falsely involved and
hence the delay. Per contra, in the FIR it is stated that informant being
the mother of the victim was devastated due to the death of her son.
Also her husband was in state of mental shock. So prima facie at this
stage, considering this contentions in the report, it cannot be said that
the delay is vital and because of the same applicant is entitled for
anticipatory bail. Whereas, during the trial the said fact can be
..5..
considered.
11.
In the FIR there is direct evidence against the applicant. So
prima facie at this stage, there is enough evidence which connects the
applicant with the present crime. There is prima facie sufficient material
on record to show the involvement of the applicant in this offence. So
considering the same and as the offence is serious in nature as
punishment prescribed for the same is death sentence or life
imprisonment, the custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary. The
investigation is also at initial stage and so for further investigation the
custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary. Hence, for the
aforestated reason I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date: 01/06/2022
Nashik.
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.06.02
17:28:18 +0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.