The Court also considered photographs produced by the complainant in Court, which were considered to arrive at a conclusion that she sustained injuries on her upper limbs. It is difficult to countenance such a procedure being followed by Sessions Court, whilst considering a bail application, to look into documents produced across the bar by the complainant, which do not form part of the record of the investigation. It is not expected of a Sessions Court to consider such material which does not form part of the investigation papers, but is taken as a ground for rejection of a bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.32 OF 2025
Mr. Vinod Shetkar Vs State of Goa
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES,J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th June 2025
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1019,2025 ALLMR (CRI) 2928.
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. This is an Application for bail filed by the Accused Vinod Shetkar
who was arrested on 04.06.2025 in Crime No.83/2025 registered at the
Mapusa police under Section 126(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2), 79,109 and
61r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), pursuant to
Complaint dated 03.06.2025 by Shruti Shirodkar.
3. According to the complaint, a group of unknown persons
assaulted the Complainant, Shruti and her husband Vivek at about
20.30hrs, at Bastora, with knifes, rod, choppers and dandas, at their food
cart, where they were carrying out their business. A written complaint
was lodged by Shruti on 03.06.2025 at the Mapusa Police Station
immediately after the incident. The complainant and her husband were
sent for medical examination and according to the hurt certificates there
were injuries in the nature of hematoma on the head Vivek and bruises
on the Shruti. Though opinion on the injuries was reserved, the same
were not reported as grievous injuries or fractures.
4. Subsequently on the Complainant giving a statement on the same
night, an F.I.R No.83/2025 was registered at about 1.15 am at the
Mapusa Police Station under section 126(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2) r/w 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). All these offences are
punishable with fine or a term of imprisonment less than 5 years.
5. The statement of the Complainant records that she “came to
know” the names of the assailants as Kartik Shetye, Tulshidas Shetye,
Kunal Shetye and Rutvik Shetye. She further stated that Kartik assaulted
them with a rod, Tulshidas kicked her and Rutvik assaulted her husband.
However, the Complainant is silent on the role played by the Applicant
(present Accused). Pursuant to this statement of the Complainant/victim
section 79,109 and 61 of BNS, 2023 were added to the offences which
are punishable with imprisonment terms ranging from 7 to 10 years .
6. On this basis the Applicant and the co-accused, Kaushal and
Ranganath were arrested on 04.06.2025. Till date there is no statement
recorded of Vivek, husband of the Complainant. Though the original
compliant records that Shruti was informed by her husband Vivek that in
the morning on 02.06.2025, one male person had a heated argument with
him over the issue of road rage, and abused him, and to retaliate, the
incident of assault on the night of 02.06.2025 took place. Since
according to the Complainant, the assault was mainly aimed at her
husband Vivek, due to his altercation with some unknown male during
the morning session, and considering that Vivek was subjected to
medical examination after the assault, one would expect his statement to
be recorded by the Investigating Officer. However there is no statement
of Vivek on record.
7. After arrest the Applicant, Kaushal and Ranganath were remanded
to police custody till 11.06.2025 and thereafter to Judicial custody where
they have since been lodged. The Applicant, Kaushal and Ranganath had
filed bail applications, the present Applicant’s Bail Application bearing
No.142/2025 in the Additional Sessions Court, Mapusa which came to
be rejected vide its order dated 11.06.2025, which simultaneously
remanded the applicant and other two co-accused to judicial custody.
The rejection was solely on the ground that release of the Applicant
would prejudice the investigation and if new facts emerge during the
further course of investigation, then the respondent(IO) will not be able
to secure the custody of the applicant.
8. The following submissions were advanced by the Learned
advocates for the parties:
9. Learned Advocate Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, advocate for the
Applicant submitted that the Applicant has not been named in the
Complaint and there is no role attributed to him, neither is there a
mention of his name in the statement of the complainant/victim.
Advocate for the Applicant further submitted that statements of all the
witnesses have been taken however, the statement of the husband of the
complainant/victim is not yet recorded. He submits that a reading of the
statements would not implicate the Applicant as a participant in the
crime. There is also no allegation that the Applicant is alleged to have
used any of the weapons referred to in the statement
10. Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Learned Public prosecutor on behalf of the state
has opposed the application relying upon the submissions made in the
reply of the I.O. He submits that the Applicant and his associates might
tamper with the evidence, and threaten the witnesses from deposing
freely as they belong to neighbouring village of the complainant/victim.
The Public Prosecutor further submits that the statements of all the
witnesses have been recorded, and some of the accused mentioned in the
statement of the victim are absconding; the Anticipatory bail applications
filed by the absconding accused are pending hearing before the Sessions
Court.
11. Mr.Vinayak Porob Advocate of the victim submitted that if the
applicant is granted bail, the entire investigation would be hampered as
the applicant would inform the progress in the investigation to the
absconding accused, which will adversely affect the course of further
investigation. It was further submitted that the Applicant is in Judicial
Custody and his custody can be obtained by the Police for further
investigation under section 187 till the period of 15 days has been
exhausted. He submits that since Accused Kartik, Tulshidas and Rutwik
have applied for Anticipatory Bail, and in the event such bail is rejected
and these Accused are taken into custody, attachment of the weapons
may be effected, and in that event, release of the Applicant from judicial
custody, without giving the IO an opportunity to apply for their custody
for further investigation, requires that the Application be rejected.
Reliance was placed on V. Senthia Balaji v/s The State of Tamil
Nadu1.
12. On considering the material on record, the following facts emerge,
and are considered by me whilst weighing whether the Applicant has
made out a case for bail:
12023 ALL SCR (Cri) 2125
a. The original complaint is made against unknown persons
whilst the statement recorded immediately after the FIR was
lodged at 1:15 a.m. on 03.06.2025 states that the
complainant/victim came to know of the names of the other
accused i.e. Kartik, Tulsidas, Rutwik and Kunal, but however
does not name the present applicant or Kaushal and
Ranganath.
b. There was no test identification parade recorded to
establish the presence and identity of the Applicant, Kaushal
and Ranganath as part of the unlawful assembly and the
assault. There is also no specific allegation against the
Applicant of having used any weapon, to substantiate the
argument raised by the Advocate of the victim that an
attachment of the weapon could still be effected at the behest
of the Applicant or Kaushal and Ranganath.
c. Even though the complainant has alleged that her husband
Vivek was the main person assaulted, surprisingly, no
statement has been recorded of Vivek, nor has Vivek named
the Applicant as one of the assailants;
d. The hurt certificates do not refer to any of the injuries
being of grievous nature, though one of the injuries is on the
head of Vivek, who has given no statement till date.
e. The investigation is almost complete and statements of all
the witnesses have been recorded, as submitted by the
learned PP in his arguments. The Applicant has been in
judicial custody since 11.06.2025.
13. The learned Advocate for the victim submits that there are no changes of circumstances recorded anywhere since the last bail application was rejected on 11.06.2025. However, perusal of the order rejecting bail on 11.06.2025, and more particularly paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof, placed reliance on a report dated 03.06.2024, produced by the complainant in Court to argue that the complainant was pregnant, and despite the accused being informed of her condition, he continued to assault the complainant and her husband. The Court also considered photographs produced by the complainant in Court, which were considered to arrive at a conclusion that she sustained injuries on her upper limbs. It is difficult to countenance such a procedure being followed by Sessions Court, whilst considering a bail application, to look into documents produced across the bar by the complainant, which do not form part of the record of the investigation. It is not expected of a Sessions Court to consider such material which does not form part of the investigation papers, but is taken as a ground for rejection of a bail. Other than the contents of paragraphs 13 and 14, the remaining paragraphs of the order rejecting bail refer to case law and there is no reference whatsoever to the statements of the witnesses, the hurt certificate or other material collected in the investigation. There is also no reference to the fact that the statement of the main victim, according to the complainant, Vivek, has not been recorded. The bail application was rejected on the basis of contents of paragraph 25 thereof without considering the relevant record and without applying its mind to the parameters set down by the Supreme Court whilst considering such an application. The argument that there has been no change of circumstance, is misplaced since none of the circumstances were in fact considered in the bail order.
14. The Judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the victim is
totally out of context in the present matter. V.Senthia Balaji (supra) was
a matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where
the considerations of bail are totally different. What the Court was
considering in that case was whether the outer limit of 15 days of
custody to the Police, from the date of arrest has worked itself out under
the PMLA Act, as opposed to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973. What
was held therein was that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
did not restrict Police custody only to the first 15 days of remand. The
Judgment does not apply to cases of regular bail and was restricted to
deciding the aforementioned point in relation to the provisions of Section
62 of the PMLA, 2002; it also held that Section 41A of Cr.P.C. had no
application to an arrest made under the PMLA, 2002.
15. For reasons stated above, the application of the Accused for bail is granted on the following conditions:
(a) The Applicant shall be released on bail in Crime
No.83/2025 registered at Mapusa Police Station on executing
a Bail Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) with one surety in the like amount, to be executed
before the Sessions Court, Mapusa.
(b) The Accused/Applicant shall furnish to the Investigating
Officer a copy of his Aadhaar card, full residential address,
email ID and his mobile phone number, which shall be kept
functional and on at all times to enable the Investigating
Officer to contact him; in addition the Applicant shall report
to the Mapusa Police Station once in a week on Monday
between 11.00 am to 1.00 p.m until completion of the
investigation.
(c) The Applicant shall not interfere with any of the
witnesses or attempt to contact them by himself or through
any of his agents or tamper with the evidence.
(d) The Applicant shall not enter the Village of Nachinola;
(e) The Applicant shall not travel outside the State of Goa
without permission of the Sessions Court at Mapusa. In
addition, the Applicant shall deposit any valid Passport in his
possession with the I.O. until completion of the investigation.
16. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
17. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
25th June,2025
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment