Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dinesh Laxman Chavan, was an accused in Special Atrocity Sessions Case No. 19 of 2015 before the learned Special Judge, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 363 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, and Sections 3(1)(i)(vi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from an incident where the deceased Anil Khirsagar was allegedly doused with petrol and set ablaze. The appellant challenged the order dated 01.08.2016 passed below Exh.43 rejecting his bail application. The appellant argued that co-accused Mayur Ghule, who had a similar role, had been granted bail by this Court on 06.10.2015 in Bail Application No. 1219 of 2015. The appellant further contended that no overt act of dousing the deceased with petrol and setting him ablaze was attributed to him, and he had been in custody for 4-5 years. The learned APP and the counsel for the respondent/victim opposed the appeal, arguing that the co-accused was granted bail because his name was not in the FIR (which was the first dying declaration), whereas the appellant's name was mentioned. They also submitted that recording of evidence had begun. The Court considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It noted that the co-accused Mayur Ghule was granted bail by a learned Single Judge on the ground that his name did not appear in the first dying declaration (treated as FIR) but only in the second dying declaration. The Court observed that the appellant's role was similar and that the main role of setting the deceased on fire was attributed to other accused. The Court also noted that the appellant had been in custody for a considerable period and the trial was not likely to conclude soon. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties. The appellant was directed to attend the trial regularly and not to tamper with prosecution witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity with Co-Accused - The appellant sought bail on the ground that co-accused Mayur Ghule with similar role was granted bail by this Court. The Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, noting that the appellant had no overt act of dousing the deceased with petrol and setting him ablaze, and the co-accused was granted bail despite being named in the second dying declaration. (Paras 5-9) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Role of Accused - The appellant was behind bars for 4-5 years and no overt act of setting the deceased on fire was attributed to him. The Court considered the period of incarceration and the fact that the trial was not likely to conclude soon, and granted bail. (Paras 5, 9) C) Evidence - Dying Declaration - The co-accused Mayur Ghule was granted bail because his name did not appear in the first dying declaration (treated as FIR) but appeared only in the second dying declaration. The Court noted that the appellant's name was also not in the first dying declaration, and the main role was attributed to other accused. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Mayur Ghule who was granted bail, and considering the absence of overt act of setting the deceased on fire.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 01.08.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Pune is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties. The appellant shall attend the trial regularly and not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
Law Points
- Bail
- Parity with co-accused
- Role of accused
- Dying declaration
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
