JAGDISH SHANKAR SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A fortnight before the incident in question viz.22-10-1996, fight had taken between two groups residing at Boudha Vasti at Pimpri and persons from both the groups came to be arrested by the police about that incident. On 22-10-1996, arrested persons were to be brought to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FC at Pimpri, District-Pune, for the purpose of remand and in that connection, complainant Tanaji Kamble, deceased Shivaji Jagtap, Pramod Shere were present in the Court for the purpose of securing bail to the persons belonging to their group. At that time, Shivaji went towards back side of the Court premises for the purpose of easing and he was followed by Prashant Shetty Yusuf and 5/6 others and the complainant Tanaji also followed them to see what was happening. Prashant Shetty and Ajay Ladda are alleged to have assaulted Shivaji with sword and knife respectively and others with stones. When complainant Tanaji intervened he was also assaulted by Prashant Shetty and Ajay and others. In that incident, Shivaji died. Complaint in that connection came to be lodged by Tanaji Kamble at Pimpri Police Station, Pune on the basis of which offences under sections 302, 147, 149 etc. of I.P.C. came to be registered. In that connection, petitioner came to be arrested on 23-10-1996. He applied for grant of bail to the Sessions Court, Pune but his application came to be rejected on 2-1-1997.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mudargi for the petitioner and Shri Tulpule, PP for the respondent-State. I have been taken through the FIR lodged by Tanaji and statements of witnesses. It is to be noted that name of the petitioner no where appears in the FIR. Further in the supplementary statement of the complainant-Tanaji recorded at the police station on 23-10-1996, for the first time, it was disclosed that the petitioner asked for other persons to catch hold of Shivaji. This is the only role attributed to the petitioner. Statements of other witnesses do not show about the presence of the petitioner at the time of the incident. Having regard to these facts, I find this to be a fit case to grant bail.

(3.) Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent security to the extent of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) and PR bond for like amount.