jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2011 Kartik Ramu Thevar ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2011 Satish Karunakar Shetty ... Applicant Versus Vishal Vijay Durafe and another .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 822 OF 2011 Ajit Vijay Durafe ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil, for the applicant in Cri.BA No.365/11 Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, for the applicant in Cri. Application No.229/2011 and original complainant in Cri.B.A. No. 365/11 and 822/11 Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/by Mr. Madhusudan Parekh and Mr. M.G. Shukla for applicant in Cri. BA No. 822/11 and respondent No.1 in Appln No. 229/11 Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 22nd July, 2011. P.C. : 1. All these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants in Cri. Bail Application Nos. 365 of 2011 and 822 of 2011 are the accused in the same case and they are seeking bail. The jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 2 respondent No.1 (in Cri. Application No. 229/2011) is an accused in the same case. He was released on bail. Criminal Application No. 229 of 2011 has been made by the first informant, for cancellation of the bail. 3. I have heard Mr. Saste, learned APP for the State and the advocates for the parties, at length. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Jagdish Shetty was abducted in the night between 11/6/2010 and 12/6/2010 by one Ajit Durafe (Applicant in Cri.B.A. No.822/11), Vishal Durafe (Respondent in Cri.BA No.229/11 and two unknown persons. Brother of Jagdish Shetty- Satish- (Applicant in Cri.BA No.229/11) lodged a report with the Sion Police Station regarding the said abduction. Later on, the dead body of the said Jagdish Shetty was found within the jurisdiction of Nerul Police Station. Since the dead body was revealed to be of the same person with respect of whom the First Information Report had been registered at Sion Police Station, further investigation was carried by the Sion Police Station. 5. That the said Jagdish Shetty died a homicidal death cannot be doubted at this stage. There is sufficient material to indicate that. 6. As regards the applicant-Ajit Durafe- (in BA 822/2011) , he has been named in the first information report. The first information report jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 3 has been based on the information received by the first informant from one Mehul and one Kapil, who both claim to be the eye witnesses to the abduction. Their statements clearly implicant the applicant Ajit Durafe. It also appears that Ajit Durafe did not return back to his home in that night. The statement of his wife which was recorded during the course of investigation, strengthens the allegation against him. Since the dead body of Jagdish was found, it is established, after he was abducted by the said Ajit Durafe and others, there would be strong suspicion against the said Ajiit Durafe with respect to the murder also. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that there exists no prima facie case against him. 7. As regards Kartik Thevar ( applicant in BA No. 365/2011), he is also said to be one of the persons who had taken part in the abduction and murder of said Jagdish Shetty. However, he was not known to the eye witnesses, and as such, he has not been named in the statements that were recorded initially. His connection with the alleged offences is sought to be established on the basis of his identification made by the eye witnesses in the test identification parade, that was held on 21st August, 2010. 8. I have carefully considered the matter. There is indeed some confusion with respect to the number of persons who are said to have jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 4 taken part in the abduction of said Jagdish Shetty. Apart from Ajit Durafe and Vishal Durafe, whether there were two other persons or three other persons, is not clear at all. In fact, initially, the eye witnesses stated about only two persons apart from the said Durafe brothers, but later on, they spoke about the presence of a third person also. 9. There are only four accused in this case, that have been arrested so far and one- Vinod @ Papa Nair- is said to be absconding. Now, it appears that Vinod @ Papa Nair, who is absconding, is not said to be present in the car at the time of abduction of Jagdish Shetty. This is more confusing, because when there were three more persons in the car at the time of abducting, apart from the said Durafe brothers, then there ought to be totally six accused in this case including the one who is absconding. If there would be totally six accused and when only four have been arrested, there ought to to be two absconding accused and not one. This confusion does not suggest that there is any dishonesty on the part of the investigating agency, but it certainly suggests that even after investigation, the investigating agency is not certain even about the number of persons involved in the initial incident of abduction. In this context, that no specific role is attributed to the said Kartik Thevar, when he was allegedly identified in the test identification jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 5 parade by the identifying witnesses, is significant. His role is merely of being in the motor vehicle. No attempt has been made to specify the role any further by recording statements of the identifying witnesses. In fact, the statements of the identifying witnesses, after the identification parade, have not been recorded by the investigating officer. 10. There is no other material, except the identification that took place in the Test Identification Parade which was held after about two and half months from the arrest of the applicant Kartik Thevar, to connect in the said Kartik Thevar with the alleged offence. 11. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, and the fact that the applicant Kartik Thevar is in custody since last more than one year, I am inclined grant him an opportunity of liberty. 12. As regards Vishal Durafe (respondent In BA229/11), he has been named by the identifying witnesses and the first informant. It also appears that Vishal Durafe had some disputes with the said Jagdish Shetty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, thought it fit to release him on bail by observing that he had not sat in the car after the said Jagdish Shetty was abducted. It also appears, that after Jagdish Shetty was taken away by the other accused persons, Vishal Durafe had gone to Sion Police Station to lodge a complaint against said Jagdish Shetty. The view of the matter, as taken by the Additional jpc ba-365,229,822-11,.sxw 6 Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the logic. There is nothing to show that the said Vishal Durafe has abused liberty, after of having released on bail. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to cancel the bail that has already been granted to him. In the result, the following orders are passed: Operative order in Criminal Bail Application No. 365 of 2011 The applicant- Kartik Ramu Thevar is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only ), with one surety in like amount, on the condition that he shall report to the Sion Police Station every alternate Sunday, till disposal of the case against him. Operative Order in Criminal Bail Application No. 229 of 2011 The application is rejected. Operative order in Criminal Bail Application No. 822 of 2011 The application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)