Dabholkar Murder Case- Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused Vikram Bhave

The bench observed that CBI's could not have relied solely on the confessional statement by co-accused Sharad Kalaskar given to the Karnataka SIT in journalist-activist Gauri Lankesh's murder case. Especially since Bhave was not an accused in the Karnataka case.

"The emphasis placed by respondent No.2-CBI solely on the said confessional statement of co-accused Sharad Kalaskar under the KCOC(Karnataka Control of Organised Crime) Act, is prima facie misplaced and it is also clear that the Sessions Court could not have placed emphasis on the said confessional statement to conclude that the accusation made against the appellant concerning the incident in question could be said to be prima facie true," A division bench of Justices SS Shide and Manish Pitale said while allowing his appeals.

The CBI arrested Bhave on 25th May 2019 along with advocate Sanjeev Punalekar. under the UAPA. They accused him of helping alleged sharpshooters Sharad Kalaskar and Sachin Andure to conduct a reconnaissance of the spot where Dr. Dabholkar was shot dead on August 20, 2013, about 15 days before the incident. The CBI further claimed that Bhave showed them the escapes after committing the crime, and one of them identified Bhave's picture.

Bhave approached the High Court challenging two rejection orders of the trial court in Pune.

The bench granted Bhave bail despite the rigours of section 43-D(5) of the UAPA Act. According to the section, an accused charged under UAPA cannot be released if the court concludes there are reasonable grounds to believe the allegations are true.

"We are aware that while considering the material placed on record along with the charge-sheet, the court cannot enter into the realm of appreciation of evidence, but we have proceeded on the basis of the material on which respondent No.2-CBI has placed emphasis and as noted above, we find that the same does not appear to show reasonable grounds to conclude that the accusations levelled against the appellant can be said to be prima facie true," the bench held.

Regarding the admissibility of a confessional statement made by a co-accused, the bench cited the proviso to section 19 of KCOC. According to the Act, a confession shall be admissible against co-accused provided that the co-accused is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused person. The bench cited i.e. section 15 of the TADA, in the case of Sunderlal Kanaiyalal Bhatija v. State of Maharashtra.

Apart from the confessional statement, the bench noted that the only other ground used by the Sessions Court to reject bail, was that Bhave was on bail in a terror case when the incident happened.

The bench noted that wasn't true. "But, as a matter of fact, the conviction of the appellant in the other case in which he was released on bail pending appeal before this Court, was not for a terrorist offence."

Another reason to grant bail was the unlikelihood of the trial beginning soon. "It is clear that further investigation is being undertaken for examining the larger conspiracy in the matter. It has been stated in a note in the charge-sheet that further list of witnesses will be submitted as investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is continuing. Thus, there is hardly any likelihood of charges being framed and the trial commencing in the near future. Consequently, there is very little chance of the trial being completed in the foreseeable future."

Bail conditions

While granting bail to Bhave, the court directed him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and two solvent sureties of the like amount.

It also directed him to appear before the police station concerned in Pune every day for one month, followed by twice a week for two months and then once a week until the trial's completion.

The HC has directed Bhave to attend the trial and not to tamper with any evidence or witnesses. They also directed him not to indulge in any illegal activities.

Bhave was represented by advocate Subhash Jha and Hare Krishna Mishra while Advocate Sandesh Patil represented the State.