S.C.

 817/2016
CNR MHPU­01­013511­2016
CR No. 121/2016 Dighi PS, Pune

Tushar Jadhav ..vs.. State

ORDER BELOW EXH.177

1] The   applicant   Tushar   Jadhav   is   seeking   regular   bail

when he is duly charge­sheeted in CR No. 121/2016 of Dighi police
station for the offence punishable under Section 302, 364, 201, 143,
147,   148,   149   of   IPC,   Section   4   r.w.   25   of   Indian   Arms   Act   and
Section 37(1) r.w. 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

2] The gist of the prosecution is that in the mid­night of
14.07.2016 at Bharatmata  Nagar,  Dighi,  Pune,  deceased  Dattatray
was brutally murdered by the present applicant and his companions
with sharp weapon on spot.   The prosecution alleged that in said
night the deceased was invited there by the co­accused Atul for the
birthday celebration of Atul's friend.   It is the story of prosecution
that   deceased   was   running   chit­fund   and   he   had   some   financial
dispute with Atul Mohite and therefore, Atul Mohite and his friend at
said   spot   murdered   the   deceased   Dattatray   with   sharp   weapon,
stones etc.  The role alleged against the present applicant is that he
assaulted the deceased with sickle as per the police statement of one
Mahesh Suryawanshi.  

3] The   bail   application   points   out   that   the   applicant   is

falsely involved in this crime.   He is young person.   He has spent
SC 817/2016 2 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

almost more than 5 years in jail and trial yet not commenced.   The
other co­accused in this crime are already enlarged on the bail.  The
present bail application of the applicant, though rejected by Hon'ble
High Court, other co­accused subsequently are released by Hon'ble
High Court and on the ground of parity he also be released on bail.
He   is   ready   to   abide   by   each   and   every   condition   that   may   be
imposed by this court.

4] The  bail   application   is  opposed  by  the  prosecution   by

filing   reply   at   Exh.178   on   the   ground   that   the   applicant   and   his
companion assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon on vital part
of   his   body.     The   applicant   was   identified   by   the   informant   in
identification   parade.     The   other   witnesses   also   identified   this
applicant.  If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may affect the trial
and tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. 

5] Heard   both   sides   at   length   and   perused   the   charge­

sheet.  On inspection of the charge­sheet it becomes crystal clear that
in   toto   9   accused   are   charge­sheeted   and  out   of   it   8   accused   are
already   enlarged   on   bail.     Accused   Atul   Mohite,   Sushant   Pawar,
Prem @ Kakka Dholpuria, Shailesh Walke, are already enlarged on
bail by the Hon'ble High Court between January 2018 to November
2021.  Similarly the other accused i.e. Nivrutti Walke, Amol Pathare,
Vishal Parthe, Shaukat Attar, are also enlarged on bail by Sessions
Court between March 2018 to August 2019.  The only accused who
is charge­sheeted and yet not released is the present applicant.  

6] The   learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   invited   my

attention to the bail orders of Hon'ble High Court submitted with list
Exh.198.  From the bail order of the accused Atul Mohite passed in
Bail   Application   No.   3049/2021   and   the   bail   order   regarding   the
SC 817/2016 3 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

accused Prem @ Kakka Dholpuria in Bail Application No. 2668/2017
and accused Shailesh Walke in  bail application No. 2891/2017, it
becomes crystal clear that the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of
CDR report observed that the  informant Shubham who alleged to
have seen the accused murdering his father at said spot in said night
of   14.07.2016   does   not   appear   to   be   present   at   said   spot.     It   is
further   observed   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   that   though   as   per
prosecution story this Shubham made phone call to police from spot
of   incident,   there   is   no   entry   of   that   phone   call   in   station   diary.
Similarly it is further observed by the Hon'ble High Court in those
bail   orders   of   accused   Atul,   Shailesh,   Prem   that   since   the   police
statement of wife and other family members of the deceased, who
reached   the   spot   of   incident   immediately   on   receiving   the   phone
message from Shubham, did not state in their police statement that
the   friend   of   informant   Rohan   Panchal   was   present   at   spot;  the
allegations of witness Rohan Panchal in police statement that he was
with  informant  and  saw these  accused assaulting deceased,  prima
facie become doubtful.   The Hon'ble High Court therefore, observed
that the presence of Shubham and Rahul Panchal, who alleged to
have seen the incident to make a statement before police that there
were 9 assailants, prima facie is not believable.  

7] The Hon'ble High Court further found that there are two
sets of eye witnesses i.e. one set of eye witness is saying that there
were   9   assailants   and   other   set   of   eye   witness   like   Mahesh
Suryawanshi   is   saying   that   there   were   only   4   assailants.     By
observing all these inconsistencies, in the light of additional material
of   CDR   record   of   informant   and   co­accused   Prem   Dholpuria   the
Hon'ble High Court released on bail key accused Atul Mohite and
other accused Sushant Pawar, Prem @ Kakka Dholpuria and Shailesh
SC 817/2016 4 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

Walke.  I may further point out here that the Hon'ble High Court also
released   accused   Sushant   Pawar   vide   order   dated   06.09.02021   in
Bail application No. 3/2020 by making similar observation as was
made in previous applications to the effect that there are two sets of
eye   witnesses   one   is   saying   9   assailants   and   other   like   Mahesh
Suryawanshi  is naming only 4  assailants,  though the  charge­sheet
having  been  filed  in  July 2016 and  other  co­accused  having  been
released   against   whom   similar   role   is   attributed,   the   applicant
deserves bail.  I may point out here that though eye witness Mahesh
Suryawanshi alleged that Sushant assaulted the deceased with sickle,
he is released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
06.09.2021.   Similar   role   is   attributed   by   Mahesh   Suryawanshi
against the present applicant.  The Hon'ble High Court in bail order
dated   06.09.2021   regarding   accused   Sushant   by   considering   the
submissions of this accused that Mehesh Suryawanshi was a chance
witness, observed that as to which set of eye witnesses is to be given
weightage is for the trial court to consider during trial.  I may further
point out here that the name of the present applicant did not figure
in FIR  so lodged by the informant Shubham, though as per police
statement   of   the   mother   of   the   informant   discloses   that   applicant
used to come to her house.   Similarly, the first eye witness Rohan
panchal, who alleged to have reached to the spot of incident with
informant   at   first   alleged   in   his   police   statement   that   the   present
applicant assaulted the deceased with fist and kick blows but in his
164 Cr.P.C. statement he dropped the name of the present applicant.

8] No   doubt   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   rejected   the   bail

application of this applicant on 26.04.2017 by passing order in Bail
Application No. 345/2017.   The copy of that bail order is with list
Exh.198.   However, thereafter, series of bail orders came from the
SC 817/2016 5 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

Hon'ble   High   Court   in   the   light   of   fresh   material   of  CDR   record,

statement of mother and sister of informant expressing doubt about
the presence of informant Shubham and his friend Rohan Panchal on
spot   and   through   that   prima   facie   evidence,   two   sets   of   eye
witnesses, ie.e one saying 9 assailants and other set of eye witness
like Mahesh Suryawanshi alleging 4 assailants emerged. Taking into
consideration these new developments, the Hon'ble High Court after
26.04.2017   granted   bail   to   various   accused   against   whom   similar
role as alleged against the applicant is attributed.

9] The   last   but   not   the   least,   I   may   add   here   that   the
Hon'ble   High   Court   granted   bail   to   key   accused   Atul,   who   had
motive to kill deceased and who allegedly brought deceased to said
spot   from   his   house   in   the   said   night   and   was   allegedly   seen   by
witnesses killing the deceased with big stone at the said spot.  

10] In the light of above discussion, I hold that the applicant
is entitled for bail not only on the ground parity, but in view of the
changed   circumstances   and   additional   material   of   CDR   etc   so
discussed by Hon'ble High Court in other bail orders.

11] Before   parting   with   the   order,   I   may   deal   with   the
various rulings cited by the applicants and they are­

1] Lt.   Col.   Prasad   Shrikant   Purohit   vs   State   of

Maharashtra – in Cr. Appeal No. 1448/2017.
2] Ramesh Iranna  Bali vs State  of  Maharashtra – 2018
ALL MR (Cri.) 912 SC.
3] Kunal Ramdas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra – 2001
ALL MR Cri. 1403.
4] Shobha Ram vs State of U.P. ­ 1992 Cri. L.J. 1371
SC 817/2016 6 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

12] I will not burden the record by discussing these rulings
one   by   one.   Suffice   to   say   here   that   these   rulings   proved   good
guideline in decision of this bail application. 

Hence, I pass the following order :­

ORDER

1] Bail   application   of   accused   applicant   Tushar   Kanhu   Jadhav

filed in connection with CR NO. 121/2016 of Dighi police station for
the offence punishable under Section 302, 364, 201, 143, 147, 148,
149 of IPC, Section 4 r.w. 25 of Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)
r.w. 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, is allowed, and he be released on
bail   on   executing   P.R.   bond   of   Rs.   25,000/­   (Rupees   Twenty­five
thousand   only)   with   one   or   more   sureties   of   the   like   amount   on
following terms and conditions ­
a] Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Pune District
except   with   the   previous   permission   of   the   Court   or   for  
attending the dates on which the trial is fixed.
b] Applicant   shall   not   contact,   threaten   or   influence    
informant and witnesses and should not tamper the evidence 
in the matter.
c] Applicant shall provide proof of his identity, residential 
permanent  address   and   contact   details   during   is   residence  
outside Pune District and shall report to the nearest police  
station twice a week, every Monday and Thursday between 11­
00 a.m. to 12.00 noon  and should not change it without prior 
intimation to the court.  He is further directed to  submit  
phone numbers of his surety/ sureties.
d] Applicant should not indulge into any crime.
SC 817/2016 7 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

e] Any   attempt   on   the   applicant's   part   to   enter   the  

jurisdiction of Pune District without permission of the  court or
other than on the dates fixed for trial will be viewed seriously.

Pune
Date :­  17th December 2021      (S.B. Hedaoo),
        Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

 
SC 817/2016 8 CNR NO. MHPU01­013511­2016

CERTIFICATE

I affirm that the contents of the PDF file Judgment are same word for
word as per original Judgment.

Name of Steno Mrs. S.M. Khisti

Stenographer Grade I
Name of Court Shri. S.B. Hedaoo, District Judge 6 and ASJ, Pune.
Date of Order 17.12.2021
Order signed by PO on 20.12.2021
Order uploaded on 20.12.2021