Bombay High Court Refuses To Suspend Artist Chintan Upadhyay's Sentence, Says Evidence Supports Co-Accused's Confession, Bail Wasn't Granted On Merits

The Bombay High Court refused to suspend sentence of artist Chintan Upadhyay observing that the confession of co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar, which implicated Upadhyay, was supported by corroborating evidence and was true and voluntary.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse dismissed the application for sentence suspension filed by Upadhyay, who was convicted in the 2015 double murder case of his ex-wife, Hema Upadhyay, and her lawyer, Haresh Bhambhani.

“The aforesaid circumstances corroborate the confessional statement of co-accused-Pradeep which is found to be true and voluntary. It is also pertinent to note that bail granted by the Apex Court was not on merits but on account of long incarceration of the applicant i.e. 5 years and since about 12 witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering the overall evidence on record, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail”, the court held.

Chintan Upadhyay is convicted for the offense punishable under Section 120B (conspiracy) r/w Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC.

The Sessions Court on October 10, 2023, sentenced Upadhyay to rigorous imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000. Other co-accused were also convicted and sentenced for various offenses related to the double murder case.

Upadhyay filed an appeal against his conviction, and filed the present interim application seeking suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail.

Senior Advocate Amit Desai for Upadhyay argued that his client's conviction rested solely on the confession recorded by co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar under Section 164 of the CrPC. Desai contended that, apart from this evidence, there was no material connecting Upadhyay to the alleged offense. He emphasized that the Apex Court had granted bail to Upadhyay during the trial, taking into consideration his five years of incarceration.

APP JP Yagnik contended that Pradeep Rajbhar had not retracted his confession and that it had been duly proven and corroborated by other circumstances on record. He argued that the bail granted by the Apex Court was not based on merits but due to prolonged incarceration and pending witness examinations. He asserted that there is now ample evidence pointing to Upadhyay's complicity in the crime.

The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the confession made by co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar under Section 164 CrPC. The court observed that there was no document presented to show that Pradeep had formally retracted his confession. The confession was found to be corroborated by various circumstantial pieces of evidence, including CCTV footage, call detail records (CDR), and the recovery of belongings.

The court highlighted circumstances, such as Rajbhar's visit to Jaipur to meet Upadhyay, their stay in a hotel, and telephone exchanges that corroborated Pradeep's confession. CCTV footage from December 11, 2015, showing the victims entering the premises behind a co-accused, and footage from December 12, 2015, depicting the loading of cardboard boxes (in which the victims' bodies were found later), in a tempo, further supported the confession, the court opined.

The court also mentioned the recovery of Hema's ring at the instance of a co-accused, CCTV footage evidence, and the forensic examination results linking Upadhyay to the crime. It noted that the bail granted by the Apex Court was not based on merits but on the prolonged incarceration of Upadhyay and the pending examination of around 12 witnesses.

The court concluded that this was not a fit case to grant bail to Chintan Upadhyay and rejected his application.

Case no. – Interim Application No. 3830 of 2023

Case Title – Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order