"Possibility Of Economic Dealing": Sessions Court Rejects Bail Plea Of BJP MLA Nitesh Rane In Attempt To Murder Case

The Additional Sessions Judge RB Rote not only rejected the application calling it as premature and therefore not maintainable, but also made a few observations on the merits of the case and said that Rane's custodial interrogation was necessary.

"Two accused are still absconding. There is possibility of economic dealing/exchange of money. Therefore, for effective investigation of the offence the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Furthermore, 11 criminal cases are shown to be registered against the applicant including offence against public servants. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incomplete investigation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary," the judge observed.

Rane, has now approached the Bombay High Court against this order.

Rane, along with six others, has been accused of charges under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code. Around Rs 1 to 1.50 lakh was allegedly paid to execute the crime.

The court also accepted with the Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat's submissions based on the details of the investigation that mobile phones of Rane and the vanity van in which he had met one of the co-accused were required to be seized and Rane's custodial interrogation was necessary to confront with other accused.

"If the applicant is granted bail, the investigation will be hampered. The applicant has filed this application simplicitor for regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. without filing written application for making surrender before Court. The application is premature hence, the application is not maintainable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to grant of regular bail," the court also observed.

Rane's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court. The SC, while rejecting his ABA last week, had granted him 10 days' time to surrender "before the trial court" and allowed him to file a regular bail application which was directed to be decided expeditiously. He, however, presented himself before the Sessions Court along with a regular bail application.

Advocate Satish Maneshinde and SD Desai, appearing for Rane, argued that since the Sessions Court was the court which had the jurisdiction to grant bail, Rane was right approaching the Sessions Court directly. Gharat and complainant's lawyer, Vikas Patil-Shirgaonkar, opposed this submission by saying that the accused should have been in custody to be able to file a regular bail application and without him being in custody, it amounted to filing anticipatory bail application – which remedy had already been exhausted right upto the apex court. The court agreed with this submission.

According to the complainant Santosh Parab, who is a contractor by profession and a member of Shiv Sena Party of the ruling alliance, while traveling on his bike on December 18, 2021, he was from behind by an Innova car without a registration number plate around 11am. He fell down and the bike fell on him and he was dragged to a distance of about 15 ft because of which he sustained injuries to his right hand.

After this, one person came out of the Innova car and asked him if he was working for Satish Sawant, a local Shiv Sena party leader, and assaulted Parab using a paper cutter on the right side of his chest. The said assailants then said that the incident should be informed to Gotya Sawant and Nitesh Rane, after which he made a call to someone and then fled in the car.

Five accused were arrested on different dates the same month and investigations eventually led the police to the sixth accused Sachin Satpute from Delhi on December 26, 2021, who allegedly revealed Rane's role in the case. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy was hatched between Rane and Satpute on August 28, 2021 in a meeting inside a vanity van. Rane is alleged to have told Satpute that Parab was spreading misunderstanding amongst his followers about Rane and his family and therefore he should be taught a lesson. Satpute the "assigned the job" to co-accused Dheeraj Jadhao, after which co-accused Dnyaneshwar alias Mauli gave effect to the crime by hiring the other accused.

Before the court, Rane's lawyers argued that the injuries on the complainant were categorised as "simple injuries" by the doctor who had examined him hence it was not a case of attempt to murder and that the complainant. It was argued that none of the five injuries would amount to grievous hurt; the injuries were not on any vital part of body; and he was discharged from the hospital the very next day.

It was also argued that this was a case of false implication which was in view of the District Bank elections in order to take revenge and curtail Rane's popularity in the Konkan region. The prosecutor and the complainant's lawyer opposed all the submissions after which the bail application was rejected.