1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1756 OF 2011 1 Mr. Sughat Bausahib Kandale 2 Mr. Prakash Vasant Dabhade ..Applicants. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, adv. for the Applicants. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 7th December, 2011 PC : 1 Applicants, who are the accused nos.2 and 5 respectively in crime no.150 of 2011 registered at Pimpri Police Station under sections 341, 395, 397, 402 r/w section 34 IPC seek to be released on bail. 2 Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.4.2011 at about 10 p.m., the first informant Gopal Goswamy and his son Deepak left their house on a motorcycle for making payment of Rs.35,000/- to the contractor towards the wages of the workers. The amount was kept in the pocket of the pant of Deepak. When they reached near Suraj Traders on main road, they found that seven accused persons were present on the road. Some of them were armed with sickles, rods and bamboo sticks. Applicant no.1 2 Sughat Kandale was having iron rod while the applicant no.2 Prakash was having bamboo stick. When the first informant Gopal and his son reached near the accused persons, the accused persons stopped them and demanded money for drinking liquor, which Deepak refused to pay. On this, accused persons threatened to kill them and they also pushed motor cycle of the first informant and felled them on the ground. At that time, four of the accused persons began to assault on the head and face of Deepak with different weapons in their hands. Deepak shouted for help. His father Gopal intervened to save him. At that time, the present applicant and accused Nilesh assaulted Gopal with the weapons in their hands and caused injuries on his right hand, head and face. They also assaulted on the back of Deepak and his father Gopal. During that incident while two accused persons, namely, Vicky and Vijay Pote removed gold chain from the neck of Gopal, the applicant no.1 Sughat snatched Samsung mobile handset from Deepak. Cash was also snatched by the culprits. Since the people of the locality assembled there, the culprits ran away from the spot of the incident. First Informant and his son both suffered serious injuries, therefore, they were immediately shifted to Niramay Hospital for treatment. 3 The learned counsel for the applicants contends that the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.4.2011, i.e., two days after the incident. Applicants are young boys aged about 19 years and they are residents of the same locality 3 and, therefore, they are not likely to commit such offences against the people of the same locality. He contends that there is no criminal record against any of them. Nothing is recovered from them. Investigation is already completed and, therefore, they deserve to be granted bail, particularly when they are in custody for more than seven months. 4 Application is opposed by the prosecution. It is contended that the applicant Sughat was involved in theft case in 2008 for which a case was registered and filed before the Juvenile Court against him. It is also contended that the first informant and his son both suffered several injuries and multiple fractures. Taking into consideration the conduct of the applicants and the injuries suffered by the complainant and his son, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. It is also explained that incident had occurred on 23rd April, 2011. Delay was caused in recording F.I.R. and the statement of Deepak because they were not in a position to make a statement for a long time as they were admitted in the hospital due to several injuries and multiple fractures suffered by them. 5 On perusal of the police papers filed with the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution story as stated is revealed not only in the F.I.R. but by a number of witnesses from that locality. Incident had occurred on 23.4.2011 at about 10.05 p.m. and as per the medical report, the first informant Gopal Goswamy and his son Deepak were admitted in Niramay 4 Hospital at 10.30 p.m. and both were admitted in the hospital. Gopal Goswamy had suffered contused lacerated wounds on occipital region, both the lips, left hand with the fractures of two fingers and also subconjective hemorrhage of the left eye. City scan of the brain reveals layering of hemorrhage in the territorial circumference. It appears that he was not in a position to make statement, therefore, there was delay in recording the F.I.R. F.I.R. was recorded on 25.4.2011 when he was indoor patient in the hospital and immediately, thereafter the offence was registered. Statement of his son Deepak appears to be recorded on 17.5.2011. It appears that he had suffered multiple fractures and multiple contused lacerated wounds on different parts of the body particularly head. Record also reveals that initially he was admitted in Niramay Hospital and then he was required to be shifted to Birla hospital for the treatment. Deepak was not in a position to make statement for a long time due to several injuries and, therefore, there was delay in recording his statement. 6 Prosecution story is supported by number of witnesses from that locality and it is also corroborated by the medical certificates. They show that accused persons had mercilessly beaten the first informant Gopal Goswamy and his son Deepak only because they had refused to make payment for drinking liquor. Not only this, they snatched away cash, gold ornaments and several valuable articles from them. In F.I.R., Gopal 5 Goswamy has stated that these persons are in the habit of terrorising people in that locality demanding money from them and on refusal they used to abuse, assault or beat the people of the locality but due to fear , people did not go to the police and lodge report. For the purpose and the manner in which these accused persons assaulted and caused multiple injuries, it appears that the accused persons have the potentiality to assault peaceful people if they fail to meet their demands though there is no previous criminal record against the accused persons except one case against the applicant no.1 when he was juvenile. The learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants had not assaulted Deepak and only role attributed to them is about the assault of Gopal Goswamy. It appears that while the applicant Sughat was armed with iron rod, Prakash was armed with bamboo stick. Both of them had assaulted on the head and the other parts of the body of Gopal Goswamy. Not only this, both of them assaulted on the back of Gopal as well as Deepak. It appears that all seven accused persons were acting conjointly for the commission of crime. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the offence under Section 395 r/w Sec.397 was committed by the accused persons. In such circumstances, merely because accused persons are in custody for the last about seven months is no ground to grand bail. Granting bail to such persons would be only encouraging the criminals and potential criminals to commit such offences 6 against peaceful law abiding citizens. There is every possibility that if they are granted bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to grant bail to them. 7 Therefore, the application stands rejected. 8 It is made clear that observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this application and the trial Court will not be influenced by any of them while deciding the matter after trial. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)