..1..
Cri.B.A.No.1243/2020
Criminal Bail Application No.1243/2020.
CNR No. MHNS010035542020
[Yadav Bhaskar Bodke V s. State]
Order below Exh.1.
This is application for regular bail U/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. in
Cr.No.I105/2019 of Ghoti P. S., for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 120B, 279, 304A, 337, 338, 427 of
I.P.C.,
Sec.184, 134/177 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2.
Considering peculiar facts of this case, some history
needs to be stated. The present applicant Yadav Bhaskar Bodke
initially lodged FIR i.e. CR No.105/2019 for the offences punishable
under Sec.304A, 337, 338, 427 of IPC and under Sec.184, 134/177
of Motor Vehicles Act in which he contended that Nilesh Dilip
Lahane is real brother of his wife and he was married to Priyanka.
On 31.7.2019, Nilesh asked for Bolero vehicle No.MH15GR1683
owned by present applicant to go to SMBT hospital, Dhamangaon
where motherinlaw of Nilesh was admitted. It is his further case
that driver of truck No.RJ14GG1876 drive the truck in his
possession in rash and negligent manner and dashed his Bolero
vehicle resulting in death of Priyanka. Subsequently it was revealed
that all the accused i.e. Nilesh Lahane, Sharad Bodke and Yadav
Bodke hatched conspiracy to murder Priyanka. Even insurance
policy was taken out and after her death, the accused have claimed
insurance and enjoyed the proceed thereof.
..2..
3.
Cri.B.A.No.1243/2020
Bail applicant is filed on the ground that the applicant is
innocent and falsely implicated in the case. That he has no nexus
with death of Priyanka. That only role assigned to present applicant
is that he is the owner of Bolero vehicle which was provided to
Nilesh at his own request. He is the informant in CR No.105/2019.
That the applicant is falsely implicated in the case merely on the
statement of coaccused. That there was no dispute of any nature
between applicant [informant] and Priyanka and he was not the
part of conspiracy. That no ingredient are made out under Sec.302
of IPC against applicant. He is permanent resident of Nashik. He has
no antecedents. He be released on bail.
4.
Notice was issued to State. State appeared through Ld.
APP Mr. Kotwal and filed say resisting for grant of application on
the grounds that statement of the applicantaccused is recorded
under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. and further investigation was carried out
under the provisions of Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C. That all the three
accused namely Nilesh, Sharad and Yadav hatched conspiracy to
eliminate Priyanka by taking her to SMBT hospital and during
travelling itself, she was murdered by Sharad by assaulting her on
her head by hammer. That statement of witnesses are to be
recorded. Hence, has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
5.
Heard Ld. Advocate A.D.Avhad for applicant. Perused
bail application. Heard Ld. APP Mr.Kotwal. Perused police papers
and say filed by Ghoti police station.
..3..
6.
Cri.B.A.No.1243/2020
Mr.Avhad reiterated all the grounds mentioned in the
bail application. He stressed his arguments that the applicant is the
informant himself and the only role faced by him is that he was the
owner of Bolero vehicle which was provided to Nilesh to go to
SMBT hospital. He has no nexus with the murder of Priyanka and
thus, has prayed for bail on certain terms and conditions.
7.
Per contra Mr.Kotwal relied upon the say filed by
Investigating Officer and also the case papers which are produced.
8.
Perused the bail application, say filed by the police and
case papers. It is not in dispute that the present applicant initially
lodged FIR about rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck
No.RJ14GG1876 with respect to death of Priyanka. Case papers
will reveal that it is the present applicant who has written letter
dated 27.8.2020 stating therein that on the day of incident as Nilesh
was taking suspicion that Priyanka was having illicit relation with
Rahul Bodke, has taken Priyanka to SMBT hospital and during the
journey, Sharad Bodke assaulted Priyanka on her head by hammer
which and thereafter portrayed that two vehicles met with an
accident and inquiry be held about Nilesh and Sharad Bodke.
9.
On perusal of the case papers, it also shows that Nilesh
and Sharad were arrested by Investigating Officer. Statement of
Nilesh is recorded under Sec.27 of Evidence Act where he has
disclosed to show the place where conspiracy was hatched by
himself, Sharad and the present applicant. Accordingly, running
panchanama has been carried out on 1.8.2019 which discloses the
..4..
Cri.B.A.No.1243/2020
place at which conspiracy between the three accused took place,
from which place Sharad stated hammer was assaulted on the head
of Priyanka. Further panchanama states recovery of hammer, the
place where accident between Bolero and truck took place. It is now
settled that Sec.27 of Evidence Act is not restricted to the recovery
of thing or article, it is also useful for establishing a fact. The
statement of the applicantaccused is recorded under Sec.164 of
Cr.P.C. From his statement, he has categorically stated that on
31.7.2019, when he was looking for the place where accident took
place, he met Sharad Bodke at Padali Phata and Sharad revealed
him that as per the conspiracy hatched, he has assaulted Priyanka
on her head by hammer. This very fact also shows that the applicant
before lodging FIR knew that Priyanka was murdered. Considering
the statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that only
role assigned to the applicant is that his vehicle was used. The
investigation is still in progress. Though the incident is of the month
of July, 2019, only in the month of August, 2020, murder was
revealed. The applicant is arrested on 1.9.2020. Hence, at this stage,
when the investigation is in progress, and more so when, earlier FIR
was lodged to mislead the police, it will not be appropriate to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, I pass
following order.
ORDER
(1). Application stands rejected.
Vardhan
Prataprao
Desai
Nashik.
Date : 28/09/2020
Digitally signed by
Vardhan Prataprao
Desai
Date: 2020.09.28
13:32:48 +0530
( V. P. Desai)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.