1 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1701/2011 Govindsing s/o Shribhata Kesram Yadav. - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Smt. Sadhana S Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- WITH CRIMAINAL APPLICATION NO.960/2011 Anil Parashram Chhajlani - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ---- Mr.NV Gavare, Advocate, for applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- WITH CRIMAINAL APPLICATION NO.1487/2011 Rahul Rajaram Shelke - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ---- 2 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 Mr.PF Patni, Advocate, for applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard the respective learned Counsel for the applicants/accused finally. 2) Accused/applicant – Govindsing (Criminal Application No.1701/20110); Anil Parashram Chhajlani (Criminal Application No.960/20110) and Rahul Rajaram Shelke (Criminal Application No. 1487/2011), have urged to release them on bail in Crime No.82/2010 (Sessions Case No.44/2011) of Supa police station, District Ahmednagar, for the offence under Sections 302 r/w 34, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. They are in custody from December 2010. 3) It is alleged; Rajaram Shelke faced political defeat and threats to his political kingdom at the hands of deceased Prakash. There was clash between two groups. Prakash was acquitted in an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, this enraged the situation. Prakash had informed police, illegal dairy milk activities of Rahul and his father Rajaram, to 3 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 the authorities. The milk dairy was raided. Even he did not venture to issue timely "no objection" for conducting/running a crusher, contemplated by either Rajaram or Rahul Shelke. These events, multiplied feelings of Rajaram and his son, to engage contract killers to eliminate Prakash, who, ultimately was fired on 13.11.2010 and gunned down. 4) The investigation reveal several facets of the contract, collecting fire-arm, releasing cash to the killers and the conspiracy. 5) For the purpose of present applications, applicant – Govindsing has allegedly supplied a katta (a country-made revolver, a fire arm) with two bullets, which was used in assassinating deceased Prakash. He hails from Uttar Pradesh and based on the information received, he was arrested on 3rd December, 2010. The learned Counsel submits, he has no role in the conspiracy, as he simply supplied Katta, he was unaware its end use by the purchaser. It cannot be said, weapon was used while firing. According to the learned Counsel, at the most, infraction of section 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act; or sale of fire arm, would be attracted, but certainly not infraction of Section 302 or 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 4 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 6) The accused/applicant – Anil Parashram Chhajlani is a Ward Boy in Government hospital, entrusted with work and control of post mortem room, shift dead bodies to facilitate post mortem by expert in the field at the hospital. Being asked, in the night of 13.11.2010, he shifted dead body of Prakash to the post mortem room, then Dr.Raut, a medical officer, was called by others and the post mortem was conducted. He remained in the post mortem room for certain period, however, allegedly was asked to collect the papers relating to X-ray of head/skull of deceased Prakash and consequently had left the room. He claims, within the span of 10-12 minutes, in his absence, it may be that the attending medical officer, either Dr. Patharkar or Dr. Pakale; have retrieved the bullet from the skull of the deceased. He has no role in such activities, as Dr. Raut also does not inform of such knowledge to him. 7) The role to Anil Chhajlani is surfaced when Dr. Patharkar allegedly handed over a plastic bag, containing a cartridge- case/cartridge empty shell, to him to hand it over to Atish Bhalsingh, which he complied. In the discovery statement of Atish, there is a reference of the accused/applicant – Anil, 5 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 carrying the plastic bag containing cartridge- case, i.e. retrieved bullet, and handed over the same to him. 8) Rahul, son of the prime accused, is alleged to have coordinated by funding Rs.3 lacs to be given to the contract killers and such withdrawal in proximity to the events are primarily establish from statement of bank officer of Bank of Maharashtra. The bank account standing in the name of "Hirkani Milk products" is jointly operated by accused Rahul and also his father – Rajaram. The further statement of the bank manager also illustrate that Rajaram also withdrew Rs.3,00,000/- on 13.11.2010 under transfer entry by core banking system. 9) Learned Counsel for the applicant- Rahul submits, there is nothing to demonstrate his client’s involvement in hatching the conspiracy/plan to eliminate deceased Prakash, a political opponent of his father. Even if in the meeting he was present, though he has been witnessed by one of the suspects. According to learned counsel, it will not involve his role in the matter and particularly to attract section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 10) The learned Counsel, in order to stress his point, has placed reliance to the judgment in 6 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 the matter of S.Arul Raja Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SCW 5923. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court analysed the confessional statement made by the suspects, as it was not appended with the certificate of Magistrate. The Apex Court held that, such statement cannot be regarded a confession, as envisaged under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The extra-judicial confession was also observed to be a weak piece of evidence. 11) The above details illustrate, there was a net-work hatched by principal accused – Rajaram and his son – Rahul and coordinated the same, achieved the purpose. The withdrawal of Rs. 3,00,000/- by itself is sufficient indication. At this stage of the matter, this Court cannot have threadbare analysis of the evidence and its worth. The learned Sessions Judge, seized with the matter, will analize the same. The effect of conspiracy, in terms of Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, will have its import, flowing from Section 10 of the Evidence Act. One cannot be oblivious to the said provision to hold that the conspiracy to eliminate deceased Prakash completed no sooner he was killed. The aftermath, speaks of the mind-set of the principal accused to ensure free passage even to the suspect or the contract killers, as the 7 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 bullet-injury was tried to be showed without exit. 12) The applicant/accused – Govindsingh, supplied the fire arm, may be for Rs.20,000/- or any other figure, but he knew that its user is fatal and will lead to eliminate a person. It is not that, it was mere infraction of provisions of the Indian Arms Act. Based on the statement, he has been apprehended. So far as accused/applicant – Anil is concerned, he was not present in the postmortem room when the post- mortem on the dead body was done and the bullet was retrieved. He indeed has carried it at the instance of his superior. He knew that the cartridge/bullet was handed over to him by his superior and he was directed to ensure its disposal through a trusted person and the mentor. 13) Even if he was supporting of his mentor, he facilitated and ensured disposal of a vital piece of evidence. It cannot be said that his role would be for infraction of Section 201 of Indian Penal Code r/w 302 and that the maximum punishment would be only of seven years or that the offence is bailable. His role, mind-set speak volume and the primary indication implicates him. 14) So far as accused Rahul is concerned, he 8 Cri.Appln.Nos.1701/11; 960/11 & 1487/11 coordinated the elimination in association with his father Rajaram and it has flash back, as narrated herein before. The weakness of the evidence to which Mr.Patni has given reference to ultimately get conviction in terms of Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code need not be repeatedly coined at this stage. 15) The applications lack merit, rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/