Bombay High Court: Applicant 2, Mohansingh Naik was seeking bail in a case registered with Dhebewadi Police Station, Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 3021, 2012, 120-B3, and 344 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. A Single Judge Bench of Shivkumar Dige, J., after noting that the applicant was more than 70-year-old and was behind bars for more than two years, opined that even though the charges were framed, the trial might take time to conclude as it had not commenced yet. Thus, the Court granted bail to Applicant 2.
In the present case, it was submitted that the applicant had conspired with other co-accused persons and accordingly, the co-accused murdered the complainant’s daughter-victim by slitting her throat as a human sacrifice for prosperity and hidden wealth, and Applicant 2 kept a watch at the time of the incident.
Counsel for respondent submitted that Applicant 2 conspired with the co-accused to kill the victim and thus, he played a vital role in the present crime. It was also contended that the statements of witnesses showed that Applicant 2 had a meeting with the co-accused to give human sacrifice of the victim.
The Court noted that the witness had stated that he had seen Applicant 2 at the incident spot, but his statement was recorded after three years. Thus, the Court opined that the evidential value of the statement of the said witness could be considered at the time of trial.
The Court noted that the applicant was more than 70-year-old, and he was behind bars for more than two years. Further, the charge had been framed against the applicant, but the trial had not commenced and thus, it might take time to conclude the same.
Thus, the Court allowed the application and held that Applicant 2 should be enlarged on bail in the case registered with Dhebewadi Police Station, Satara, on executing P.R. Bond for Rs 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount and should not enter the Satara District till conclusion of the trial except while attending the Court.
[Phoolsingh Shevu Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 313, decided on 07-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Advocate Shreyas Barsawade
For the Respondent: APP Sangeeta D. Shinde
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
