1 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1840 OF 2009. 1. Ramesh S/o Laxman Jadhav. 2. Siddheshwar @ Siddhu S/o Madhavrao Jadhav. ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1911 OF 2009. 1. Shashikant @ Balu S/o Dattatraya Jadhav. 2. Sandeep @ Nilu S/o Dattatraya Jadhav. 3. Chandrashekhar S/o Bhagwan Jadhav. ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1923 OF 2009. Tanaji S/o Madhavrao Jadhav ...Applicant. Versus 2 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1969 OF 2009. Dnyaneshwar s/o Chhagan Jadhav ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1983 OF 2009. 1. Rukhmanbai w/o Laxmanrao Jadhav. 2. Punjabai w/o Tukaram Jadhav. 3. Saraswatibai w/o Raosaheb Gadekar. 4. Bijubai w/o Vitthalrao Jadhav. ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATRION NO.2064 OF 2009. Bhagaji s/o Deorao Jadhav ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. 3 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. ... Mr.,V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicants in Cri.Appln.No.1840/2009. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for the applicants in Cri.Appln.No.1911/2009. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicant in Cri.Appln.No.1923/2009. Mr.A.S.Barlota, Advocate for the applicant in Cri.Appln.No.1969/2009. Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants in Cri.Appln.No.1983/2009. Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant in Cri.Appln.No.2064/2009. Mr.R.R.Mane, APP for the respondent/State in all Criminal Applciations. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 30th June, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 17/2009, registered with Phulambri Police Station, Taluk: Phulambari, Dist.Aurangabad, dated 23rd February, 2009, alleging offences punishable under Sections302, 353, 341, 143, 147, 149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. 2. The prosecution case can be narrated as under: . All the applicants are resident of village Pal. Taluka: Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad. Deceased Rohidas belonged to the Scheduled Caste and was resident of the same village. About two years back, he either had love affair with a girl belonging to "Maratha" community of the village or had an evil eye on her. In earlier incidents, he tried to tease or attack her and on one occasion, he even stabbed her. At that time, Rohidas was arrested and charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After the said incident, Rohidas left the village and started residing at Aurangabad. 3. On the date of the incident, he was seen in the village at about 10.30 and at that time he was also seen chasing Vaishali with knife in his hand. At that time, the four main accused namely, Dnyaneshwar, Santosh, Chhotu and Sachin caught Rohidas and started assaulting him. They started dragging him to the central place of the village, which is known as "Shivaji Chowk". The complainant, who happens to be the Police Patil of the village learnt about this and rushed to the rescue of Rohidas, but the above mentioned accused asked him not to interfere in their affair. They told him that Rohidas was guilty of 5 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. teasing, attacking Vaishali and so they would punish him. The complainant then made phone call to the police and told the constable who received his call that they should rush to the village and rescue Rohidas. In the mean time, the beating of Rohidas continued. His clothes were torn off and he was ultimately tied at an electric pole which was situated at "Shivaji Chowk" of the village. Seeing this, number of villagers including some women gathered around him. Even the prosecution witnesses namely the uncle, brother and cousins of Rohidas also came there. 4. In response to the complainant's plea for help, police Head Constable came there on motorcycle but the villagers asked him not to interfere and threaten him that if he did, his motorcycle would be set on fire. The abovenamed assailents & nummber of others assaulted Rohidas with the help of sticks, iron rods, stones etc. and in the process he was virtually lynched and pulverised. Belatedly, a posse of police men arrived at the village in a police jeep. Even they could not reach this spot because the mob of villagers asked them not to interfere and threaten them of dire consequences. But still, the police some how by using force succeeded in reaching up to Rohidas. By which time, Rohidas had become unconscious. He was taken to a hospital but he was declared dead. 6 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. 5. The body of Rohidas was sent for post-mortem and the Medical Officer found as many as 25 injuries on his person. Serious head injuries were also found. The Medical Officer opined that Rohidas "died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple contusion with head injuries". The post-mortem report specifically mentions that the victim suffered multiple "rail track contusion/abrasion" all over his body. This indicates that Rohidas was mercilessly beaten up with weapon like sticks and iron rods. 6. As said above, the first important eye witness to the incident was the first informant-the Police Patil. He said, he saw as many as 55 persons of the village assaulting the deceased. He named them in the FIR. The police recorded two more supplementary statements of the complainant. In these statements, he added few more names to his earlier list. 7. The second eye witness is Dattu, Rohidas' brother. He said, he learnt about the incident at about 12.30 mid day from his cousin Amol and he rushed to the place of incident. He named 27 persons of the village as the assailant of Rohidas. Whereas, he also mentioned that at least 100 to 150 persons were gathered near the place of incident. His statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was also recorded about a month subsequent to the incident, where he repeated his earlier 7 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. allegations. 8. The third eye witness Raosaheb is the uncle of deceased. He also gave graphic account of the incident in his statements under Sections 161 & 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. There are two more eye witnesses of the incident namely Amol and Gangadhar. But, they stated that they did not witness the entire incident as they left the scene of incident soon after it started due to fear and threats. Given the magnitude of the incident and number of people involved in it, the police filed charge-sheet against 75 residents of the village. At present, I am told 16 are in custody. Out of the 16 accused, 12 have moved the present applications. I will now, deal with individual cases. 10. Criminal Application No.1911/2009. . Through this application, three accused moved their application for bail. All the three applicants deserve bail for following reasons. 11. The first and foremost reason for granting them bail, is the fact that their names are not mentioned in the FIR. Though witness Dattu named them as assailants of the deceased, he did not attribute any particular overt act to them. Witness Raosaheb does 8 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. not name them as assailants. 12. Criminal Application No.1840/2009. . There are two applicants viz : Siddheshwar @ Siddhu & Ramesh. Siddheshwar @ Siddhu is not named in the FIR. However, Dattu named both of them in his first statement but dropped Siddheshwar's name in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Witness Raosaheb attributed a role to applicant Ramesh. He, said that applicant Ramesh and another accused came near him when he tried to intercept the mob gathered around the deceased in an attempt to rescue him. He said, applicant Ramesh asked him not to come near Rohidas and he should leave, otherwise, he would also be tied and beaten up. Witness Raosaheb, however, does not attributed any specific role to applicant Ramesh as far as the assault on Rohidas is concerned. Both these applicants deserve bail. 13. Criminal Application No.1923/2009. . The name of the applicant is Tanaji. He too deserves bail for following reasons. 14. His name has not been mentioned in the FIR. His name was mentioned by the complainant in his second supplementary statement rather belatedly. However, no 9 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. specific role is attributed to him. I am told, Tanaji is an old man and according to witness Raosaheb, he was sitting away from the scene of incident. Witness Raosaheb went to him to seek his help. But applicant Tanaji asked him to leave else, he would also be in trouble. Witness Dattu, does not name him in his narration., However, a police constable specifically named this applicant in his statement and stated that when he tried to intervene, this applicant threatened him of dire consequences. What is significant about this applicant is that he did not participate in the actual assault on Rohidas. He, therefore, deserves bail. 15. Criminal Application No.1983/2009. . This application is moved by four women accused. The complainant in the FIR mentioned their names, but did not attribute them any specific role. This in my view, is quite an important omission on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant is the Police Patil of the village. He was present at the spot, through out the incident. He tried to intervene and stop the assault on Rohidas. The assailants threatened him of dire consequences. He then made phone call to police. Due to his SOS the police ultimately came to the spot and thereafter, complainant narrated the incident in his complaint. Had the applicants played significantly active role in 10 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. the incident, the complainant would not have omitted the same in his complaint. 16. Witness Dattu, in his statement mentioned the names of applicants. But did not attribute specific roles to them. It was witness Raosaheb, who for the first time attributed specific roles to these applicants. He stated that these applicants threw irritants like kerosene, chilly powder, salt sewage water etc. on Rohida's injuries to enhance his suffering and pain. But as said above, if the complainant did not mention these overt acts in the FIR, I am not inclined to give importance to it. Besides, the applicants are women. The applicant No.1- Rukhminibai is 75 years old woman and I think the applicants deserve bail. 17. Criminal Application No.2064/2009. . Accused Bhagaji made this application for bail. He deserves bail mainly because his name is not mentioned in the FIR. Even though Dattu named him as one of the assailants in both his statements, he did not attribute any specific role to Bhagaji. Witness Raosaheb altogether omitted him in his narration. The other witness Gangadhar named him stating that he had threatened him of dire consequences, if he intervened and tried to save the victim. 11 CR.APP.NOS.1840, 1911, 1923, 1969, 1983 & 2064 OF 2009. 18. Criminal Application NO.1969/2009. . Accused Dnyaneshwar s/o Chhagan Jadhav seeks bail through this application. He too deserves bail. His name is mentioned in the FIR, but no specific role is attributed to him. Both witnesses Dattu and Raosaheb named him as one of the assailants of the victim,but did not attribute role to him except Raosaheb in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, attributed rather belatedly a role to this applicant saying that he used stick to give blows on the person of Rohidas. The material is not strong enough to deny him bail. i) The applicants in all the applications are released on bail of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) each, with one surety in the like amount, each. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.