Very Grave Offence, No Bail Despite Delay In Trial: Bombay High Court To Man Who Allegedly Murdered Neighbour To Fake Own Death For Insurance Money

The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man who allegedly staged his own death by murdering his neighbour, in order to claim the benefit of his life insurance worth Rs. 1.5 Crores.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar found the alleged offence grave enough to deny bail despite a delay in the trial.

“The Applicant is incarcerated since about 4 years and 2 months and therefore Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for the Applicant is correct in contending that there is a delay in conducting the trial. However, as noted herein above, the offence is very grave and serious. It is a pre-planned crime. To avail the benefit of life insurance policy of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, an innocent person was killed to portray that the Accused No.1 had met with an accident and that in the said accident, the car in which Accused No.1 was travelling, caught fire and the said car as well as Accused No.1 got burnt...Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected.”

According to the prosecution, the applicant, one Sumit More along with five other accused, orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently claim benefits from his ICICI Prudential Life Insurance policy. More, his parents, two brothers, and a friend allegedly formulated a plan that involved faking a fatal car accident by setting it ablaze, claiming More was in it, fabricating his death, and claiming his life insurance policy.

More's maternal uncle lodged an FIR on January 20, 2020, reporting that he discovered a charred body in a burnt car belonging to More's mother. He initially identified the body to be More's. However, in a supplementary statement on January 27, 2020, he said that he identified More alive on January 24, 2020, at the police station. More allegedly informed his uncle then that he had murdered a neighbour to stage his own death. More was booked under Sections 302, 435, 201, 109, 120-B, and 34 of IPC.

Advocate Shailesh Chavan for More argued that he had been in custody for over four years and two months with no significant progress in the trial. He contended that the supplementary statement by Kamble is an extra-judicial confession and thus inadmissible as evidence. Chavan highlighted the lack of blood-stained clothes among the recovered items, casting doubt on the prosecution's case, and cited the release of other co-accused on bail, including More's mother and a friend.

Additional Public Prosecutor PH Gaikwad for the State opposed bail emphasizing the severity of the offense and pointed to incriminating evidence, including recovery of wood log and clothes with petrol odours from More as well as witness statements linking him to the crime scene. He contended that there was premeditation and strong circumstantial evidence exists against More.

The record indicated that the car used in the crime was used solely by More. Additionally, the burnt car contained the charred body of his neighbour. Recovery of clothing with a petrol odour and documents related to insurance policies added to the incriminating evidence to prima facie satisfy the court in support of the charges.

The court noted the seriousness of the charges, particularly the murder charge under section 302 of IPC, which carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment.

“The manner in which the offence was committed clearly shows that there is a likelihood of the Accused, both, fleeing from justice and tampering with witnesses”, the court added.

Although finding substance in Chavan's contention that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, the court noted that the case does not completely or solely rest on the uncle's extra-judicial confession. The court dismissed the argument of parity with the other accused, highlighting that More had the main role, and the life insurance policy was registered in his name.

However, the court allowed More to approach the court again for bail if there was no substantial progress in the trial within 15 months, following the prosecution's statement that it would take steps to conclude the trial within that period.

Case Title: Sumit Suresh More vs State of Maharashtra 

Case No - Criminal Bail Application No.1239 Of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order