1 Cri-A-4083-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4083 OF 2010 Pramod Dattatraya Waghmore ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Senior Counsel, i/b. J.B.Kocheta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.2 - CBI. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 17th February, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.8/2010 registered at Talegaon Dabhade Police Station under Section 302, 120B read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Counsel or the parties. perused the police papers filed with the charge sheet by the local police, though the CBI to whom the investigation was entrusted later on as per the directions of the High Court, has not filed any charge-sheet or supplementary charge sheet thereafter. 3. On 13.1.2010, in the morning, one Satish Shetty, who was a social 2 Cri-A-4083-10.sxw worker, was brutally murdered in front of Yogiraj Hotel at Talgaon Dabhade. As soon as the information was received by his brother Sandeep Shetty, he lodged a report at Talegaon Dabhade Police Station specifically stating that his brother was spearheading agitation against corruption and he was the District Co-ordinator of "Bharashtachar Virodhi Dakshata Samiti".. It was stated in the FIR that he was vigorously pursuing the matter of Government land grabbing as well grabbing of land of poor people by one Virendra Mhaiskar, promoter of IRB Infrastructure and one Sable, founder of Nitin Sable-Waghire Group. Those persons had also tried to bribe Satish Shetty to keep quiet, but on his refusal, they had also given threats to kill him. In view of this background, first informant Sandeep Shetty expressed his suspicion against said Mhaiskar and Sable in connection with murder of Satish Shetty. On the basis of that FIR, the offence was registered. It is also stated that on 24.11.2009, just 1-1/2 month prior to his murder, Satish Shetty himself had addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, apprehending danger to his life because of his agitation against him and he had sought protection for life of himself and his family members. Initially, the investigation was being carried by Talegaon Dabhade Police. However, as per the direction given by this High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.466/2010, the investigation was handed over to CBI. 3 Cri-A-4083-10.sxw 4. It appears that the local police had investigated the case on the basis of statement of Shantaram M. Takle recorded on 14.1.2010 wherein he had stated that at the time of previous Assembly Election which was held sometime in April 2009, one Santosh Shinde had told him that Advocate Vijay Dabhade had given him contract and amount of Rs.1 lakh to kill Satish Shetty because of their dispute. The police arrested Vijay Dabhade and his employee Pramod Waghmore, who is applicant before this Court and some other persons. According to prosecution, on 19.1.2010, the present applicant had made a statement before the police showing that about 7 - 8 months earlier Vijay Dabhade had entered into conspiracy with two persons to commit murder of Satish Shetty and he had also paid money to them. As per that statement, when he went to the office of Vijay Dabhade, he heard the talk about the conspiracy. He was asked by Vijay Dabhade to show the house of Satish Shetty and as per direction he took one of them on his motorcycle near the bungalow of Satish Shetty and showed the same to him. Later on, the applicant allegedly took the police and showed the way leading to that bungalow, which he had shown to the contract killer. However, there was no other recovery or discovery. The whole case against the present applicant is based on above referred statement under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. Looking to the above facts, it appears that the statement of the present applicant referred to a conspiracy which was hatched about 7 - 8 months prior to his statement and from 4 Cri-A-4083-10.sxw the statement of Shantaram, it appears that that conspiracy had flopped. Learned Addl. P.P. for CBI concedes that about that conspiracy, a separate case has been registered against Santosh Shinde. In fact, the statement of the present applicant recorded by the police on 19.1.2010, prima facie, does not appear to be admissible under Sec.27 because it does not lead to any discovery of fact and in any case, that does not lead to discovery of any fact pertaining to the conspiracy or murder of Santosh Shetty which took place on 13.1.2010. In view of this, I see no material to refuse bail to the present applicant. 5. Before concluding it will be necessary to note down that for the reasons best known to the local police, they never investigated the case from the angle of suspicion against Mhaiskar, the promoter of IRB Infrastructure, Sable of Sable-Waghira Group, even though their names were specifically mentioned in the FIR. As noted earlier, deceased himself had sought protection to life of himself and his family members because he was apprehensive due to agitation by him against corruption by Aryan Infrastructure Investments Pvt.Ltd. Joe Development Corporation and IRB. After the investigation was handed over to CBI, it was expected that CBI would investigate the case thoroughly from all the angles, but it appears that for last 8 months CBI has not even touched any of the suspects of the murder for the reasons best known to the investigating Officer, maybe because 5 Cri-A-4083-10.sxw all of those parties appear to be very powerful financially and otherwise. CBI continued investigation on the same line which was adopted by the local police. It is also material to note that the first informant Sandeep Shetty had filed an affidavit dated 10.3.2010 in W.P.No.466/2010 clearly stating that whatever dispute which his brother had with Advocate Vijay Dabhade were settled one year before his murder and thereafter there was no dispute between them. Inspite of that the investigating agency continued the investigation against Vijay Dabhade and his employees without touching the politically and financially strong people who were suspected to be behind the murder as per FIR. I am told that the W.P.No. 466/2010 is still pending. In my opinion, it will be necessary to place this also before the Division Bench so that the Division Bench may pass appropriate orders to monitor the investigation of the case. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 7. Registry to place a copy of this order before the appropriate Division Bench dealing with W.P. No.466/2010. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)