Criminal Application Nos. 400 and 675 of 2014. Case: Meghana Mangesh Lanjekar Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Application Nos. 400 and 675 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocate and For Respondents: V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. |
| Judges | A. M. Thipsay, J. |
| Issue | Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 109, 307, 34, 341, 364, 427 |
| Judgement Date | January 07, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
A. M. Thipsay, J.
-
These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.
-
The applicant in both these applications is the widow of one Mangesh Lanjekar who was murdered on 15th August 2013. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Arvind Lanjekar - brother of the deceased, a case in respect of offences punishable under section 341 IPC, 364 IPC, 427 IPC and 109 of the IPC was registered, and investigation commenced. Ravindra Gunjal (respondent No. 2 in Cr. Appln No. 675/14) Ganesh Gunjal and Sachin Dhotre (respondent No. 3 in Cr. Appln No. 400/19) were arrested in the early hours of 16th August 2013. Ishwar Gunjal (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Application No. 400/14) was, however, arrested on 22th October 2013.
-
All the accused applied for bail before the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions granted bail to the accused Ishwar Gunjal (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Application No. 400/14) on 8th January 2014 and to Sachin Dhotre on 7th May 2014. Ganesh Gunjal and Ravindra Gunjal were not granted bail by the Court of Sessions. Ravindra Gunjal (respondent No. 2 in Cr. Appln. No. 675/14) was, however, released on bail by this Court by an order dated 18th January 2014, primarily by observing that his case was almost on par with Ishwar Gunjal who had been released on bail by the Court of Sessions. The applicant being aggrieved by the orders granting bail to the respondents, has approached this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to them by making these two applications.
-
I have heard Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr. Prakash Naik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Appln No. 400/14 and for respondent No. 2 in Appln No. 675/14. I have heard Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have glanced through the copy of the charge-sheet that has been supplied by the learned counsel for the applicant.
-
The substance of the prosecution case is that there was professional rivalry and resultant enmity between Mangesh Lanjekar and his brother Arvind Lanjekar on one hand, and Ravindra Gunjal and Ishwar Gunjal on the other hand. On an earlier occasion, Arvind Lanjekar was attacked by Ravindra Gunjal, Ishwar Gunjal and Tushar Gunjal, and a case of offences punishable under section 307 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, was registered against them in that regard. This case, which was registered in 2008 is still pending vide Sessions Case No. 28/09 in the Sessions Court at Kalyan. In that case, the deceased Mangesh Lanjekar was a witness.
-
The prosecution case is specifically that due to this rivalry, Mangesh Lanjekar was assaulted by Ganesh Gunjal and Sachin Dhotre resulting in his death. This assault is said to have been in pursuance of the conspiracy that was hatched by and between the accused persons.
-
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that while releasing the accused Sachin on bail, the Court of Sessions overlooked certain incriminating material. He also submitted that even this Court committed an error in treating the case of Ravindra on par with that of accused Ishwar. According to him, even the order granting bail to accused Ishwar, as passed by the Court of Sessions, is not in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the enmity between the family of the accused persons and that of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial