1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1562 OF 2022
CNR NO. MHCC020084592022
Ashok Rajaram Bharugade
Age: 35 years, Occ. : Service,
R/at : Room No.1, Chawl No.1,
Mangalprasad Chawl, Ambewadi,
Kalachowky, Mumbai.
…Applicant/Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Kalachowky police station)
…Respondent/State
Appearances :
Mr. Pradyumnna Waghmare, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Ms. Jyotsana Gawali, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.A. KULKARNI (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 12TH JULY, 2022
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. Perused
documents on record.
2.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant submitted that applicant is
arrested by police in connection with Crime No.34/2022 registered by
Kalachowky police station for the offences punishable under Sections
302 of IPC. As per allegations of informant, applicant committed
murder of his real brother on the count that brother of applicant
scolded one Umesh @ Jitendra. It is contention of Ld. Advocate for
applicant that investigation is completed. Applicant is only earning
2
member of his family. It is further submitted that during investigation,
police recorded statement of one Jitendra Kumar, who stated police that
he is not same with whom there was quarrel of applicant and deceased.
He also contended that there are material discrepancies in investigation.
Recovery of knife is doubtful. In view of case of prosecution, as per
statement of witnesses, relation between applicant and deceased were
good. Therefore, there was no motive of applicant to commit murder of
deceased. Hence, it is contended that there is no need of detention of
applicant for indefinite period. Applicant is ready to abide by
conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
3.
Ld. APP filed say Exh.2 and opposed the application on the
ground that offence is serious. Applicant is not having permanent
address of Mumbai. Therefore, there is possibility of his absconding, if
released on bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
4.
In view of submissions from both the sides and settled law
while granting or refusing bail, seriousness of the case, prima facie
involvement of the applicant, consequences if accused is convicted,
possibility of tampering of evidence, is required to be considered. In this
case, it is not disputed that deceased was brother of applicant and death
of deceased is unnatural. As per the statement of informant Sachin
Chavan, he is eye witness of the incident. In his presence, applicant
assaulted deceased. Further statement of Santosh Shinde also suggested
that applicant assaulted deceased. Witness Jitendrakumar also stated
before investigating officer that he was witness of incident. Statements
of wife and mother of informant suggested that applicant taken
deceased with him from house on the day of incident at about 10.35
p.m. Post Mortem report also suggested unnatural death of deceased. As
3
per case of prosecution, there is evidence in the form of CCTV footage.
Therefore, in view of above stated fact and statements of witnesses
before investigating officer, prima facie involvement of applicant is
established. Offence against applicant is of murder of his real brother.
Punishment prescribed for offence under Section 302 of IPC is death
penalty or life imprisonment. Therefore, in view of prima facie
involvement of applicant, consequences of the offence are serious.
Though Ld. Advocate for applicant pointed out some alleged errors in
investigation, I am of the opinion that it is not stage to consider it while
deciding application for bail nor there is need to appreciate evidence
collected by investigating officer. In view of relation between informant
and deceased as well as witnesses examined by the prosecution,
witnesses are close relatives and in relation of business. Therefore,
possibility cannot be ruled out of tampering of evidence of prosecution.
Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not fit
case for grant of bail. Hence, application is liable to be rejected. Hence,
I passed the following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No. 1562 of 2022 is rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
Date : 12.07.2022
Dictated on
: 12.07.2022
Transcribed on : 12.07.2022
HHJ signed on : 12.07.2022
[A.A. KULKARNI]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
13.07.2022
Upload Time
4.30 p.m.
Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With HHJ SHRI. A.A. KULKARNI (CR 24)
Court Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 12.07.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 12.07.2022
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 13.07.2022
on