CNR MHNS010049852022 Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1160/2022.

[ Suresh Rajaram Kapse and anr. Vs. State ]

This is first bail application moved by the applicants accused Suresh Rajaram Kapse and Nivrutti Shankar Kapse for releasing them 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.

Applicants ­accused were 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 they are in jail.

2.It is stated in the application that, the applicants­accused have no connection with the alleged crime. There is no evidence against them 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 applicants­accused went to the spot to intervene the quarrel and they have been falsely implicated in present crime. The applicants­accused themselves have taken the deceased to the Hospital. The applicantsaccused have previous enmity with Somnath Dagu Kapse and Sindhu Kapse and therefore, they have stated against them in their statement. They have 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 applicants­accused have falsely implicated in this crime and the antecedent of the applicants­accused are clean. There is no evidence in charge­sheet against them. 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, applicantsaccused and deceased are close relative and if the applicantsaccused are released on bail, again there are chances of quarrel between them and again commit the offence and they may pressurized the witnesses. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

4.The learned counsel Shri. R.B. Adake submitted that applicants­accused have been implicated falsely. The applicantsaccused have no role in commission of the offence and just because of relatives they have been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no allegation against them 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 applicants­accused and the deceased are close relatives and they are present on the spot and had taken active role in assault the deceased. There is sufficient material against the applicants­accused about their involvement in the crime. If the applicants­accused released on bail, they 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 applicants­accused were 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 applicants­accused were member of unlawful assembly and had actively taken part of assault to the deceased and therefore, the applicants­accused have 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 applicants­accused 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.1160/2022 is hereby rejected.

2) Inform concerned police station.

Digitally signed by SHINDE SHINDE MADHAV A MADHAV A Date: 2022.10.19 17:58:57 +0530
( M. A. Shinde ) Date­ 19.10.2022 Additional Sessions Judge­ 9, Nashik.