Custodial Interrogation Is Not Imperative Merely Because Offence Is Murder : Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused

A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the man's legitimate apprehension of arrested was enough to seek pre-arrest bail adding the offence allegedly occurred three years ago wherein he allegedly had a limited role.

"Merely because the offence involved is under Section 302 of IPC, it is not imperative for his custodial interrogation and an apprehension of the applicant that, 'he has reason to believe that he may be arrested', is sufficient to invoke the provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and considering the fact that the incident had taken place some three years back and the material compiled in the charge-sheet against other accused refects a limited role to the applicant, at this stage, he deserves protection from arrest."

Facts of the Case

According to the complaint filed by Manojkumar Dubey on May 20, 2019, he learned that his brother Sanjay was assaulted with swords and hockey sticks near the local temple. He had rushed to the spot immediately which is when he learned that Santosh Mane and three others had assaulted Sanjay. He further claimed that his brother had spoken about prevailing enmity between the group and how the police wasn't acting against Mane in the previous cases.

Mane, approached the Bombay HC seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground of completion of investigation, the charge-sheet having being filed against the co-accused and a limited role of conspiracy having being attributed to him.

Senior counsel Rajiv Chavan appeared for the applicant and APP Anamika Malhotra for the state.

Justice Dangre observed that the names of the three assailants were revealed in the chargesheet and in the CCTV footage, Mane was not one of them. And while the police had alleged that the deceased was assaulted at Mane's behest the supplementary charge-sheet doesn't show his "exact role."

"It is not the case of the prosecution that he was present on the spot." Moreover, the CDR compiled in the charge-sheet only established communication between Imran (alleged co-conspirator) and other accused, added the court.

"Since the material in the charge-sheet falls short of establishing a connect between the applicant and death of Sanjay @ Babloo, who was assaulted by the three assailants and the prosecution accused the applicant of the conspiracy, which in no way has surfaced from the charge-sheet fled against the co-accused, the applicant deserves protection from arrest," Justice Dangre observed.

Case Title: Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370 

Click Here To Read/Download Order