ATUL BABRUVAN KAMBLE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The application of bail had been filed under 439[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the respondents in front of the High Court as the accused arrested was not guilty of any crime. The incident was registered by the police officers of APMC Police Station, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai under Sections 302[2], 201[3], 397[4], 120-B[5] read with 34[6] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The factual matrix goes like the reporting of the incident to the police station on 19.05.2018 by Smt. Anita Chandrakant Chavan, a neighbour of the deceased, Smt. Suman Baban Hande who as opined by the doctor died of asphyxia due to smothering.  Further investigation revealed by her son that the ornaments worn by the deceased were not there on the body. Henceforth, the crime got registered in the name of certain unknown persons. The accused were arrested on 27.05.2018.

Henceforth the bail application to the High Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the grounds of arrest, correct?
2. Whether sufficient evidence has been produced to deny the bail application?
3. Is granting of bail correct in this situation?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS

1. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners have argued that there is not sufficient evidence against the accused for the arrest.
2. The counsel supported the point by saying that except the empty jewellery boxes the passport of the deceased, her pan card and Xerox copies of the Aadhar Card were recovered and no other material was found that connected the accused to the crime.
3. He concludes by saying that these evidences are not enough to be connecting his client to the crime under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.[7]

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. The learned counsel for the state has argued that the evidences have been found in relation of the accused to the crime.
2. The statements of the son and the neighbour clearly depict that the accused was present and has committed the reported crime.
3. He concludes by pleading that the arrested person should not be granted bail.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The judgement was delivered by a single judge.

JUDGEMENT

The Bombay High Court considered the arguments of both the parties and after making observation, it stated tha the evidences produced by the respondent are not sufficient as there was nothing else that could interlink the crime and the accused.

Hence the court ordered the release of the accused on the conditions mentioned:

1. It was ordered to release the applicant on executing the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties,
2. With the warning the applicant was released that it would not try to influence any witness or any person connected with the case nor contact the complainant and tamper the evidences,
3. It was ordered to the applicant to inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the investigating officer of the police station concerned with the case,
4.  The applicant was ordered to attend all the dates before the trial court until exempted and cooperate with them,
5. He had to file an undertaking with regard to the points given from 3 to 5.
6. The prosecution was given the power to seek cancellation of the bail if any of the conditions mentioned were violated or in defaults in attending the concerned police station,
7. The court made it clear that the order was prima facie and it would not bind the Learned Trial Court.

CONCLUSION

The arrested person has been given the right of bail whenever he thinks that he has been arrested on insufficient and baseless grounds and that would be the violation of his rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Hence this provision was inserted to prevent unwanted arrests.

---

[1] S.439, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

[2] S. 302, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[3]S. 201, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[4]S. 397, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[5]S. 120(b), The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[6]S. 34, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[7] S. 27, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

written by SHRIYANSHI, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW, 4th semester