BJP MLA Nitesh Rane Approaches Bombay High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Attempt To Murder Case

A Sessions Court had, last week, denied anticipatory bail to him and a co-accused Sandesh Sawant. The Kankavli Police booked them under sections 307, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case against Rane is based on a complaint filed by Santosh Parab (44). He alleged that while he was going on a bike from Naravde Naka in Kankavli, an Innova car without a number plate hit his motorcycle and dragged it over 50 feet. The assailant then allegedly threatened to get back at him for working with one Satish Sawant.

Parab said the man attempted to kill him and stabbed him in the chest. Moreover, he told the cops, he heard his attacker name Gotya Sawant and Nitesh Rane. The attacker is alleged to have said that he must inform the two about the incident.

Before the Sessions Court, the applicants had argued that they have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The two claimed to be responsible representatives of the people and said they had co-operated by giving their written statements on service of summons. They would be arrested owing to political pressure, they argued.

While the investigation is almost complete, there is no whisper of their role, the two claimed.

The prosecution, led by Advocate Pradeep Gharat, objected to their application and submitted that the duo isn't cooperating with the investigations. Evidence prima facie shows that accused Sachin Satpute and Nitesh Rane were together in a vanity van. Moreover, CDR and IPDR of both accused also matched. Rane's custody was required to find out about his participation in the economic/political crime, Gharat argued.

Gharat, citing CCTV footage, also submitted that another co-accused Karan Kamble was seen purchasing a screw-driver, spanner and cutter from a shop at Kankavli. He submitted that the vanity van in which the alleged conspiracy was hatched was yet to be seized.

He said that the complainant was not known to any of the assailants therefore, they seem to have acted at someone's behest.

At the outset, the Sessions Court had noted that there wasn't an inordinate delay in recording the complainant's statement.

"The applicants came with the case they are falsely implicated out of political rivalry, still statement of injured remained on record. It is well settled principle of law that generally injured will not allow to escape real assaulter, similarly, in the present case lapse of couple of hours in recording statement of victim does not make case of false reference of statement of assaulters," the order said.

The court pointed out that the complainant feared for his life.

It concluded that since the applicants failed to prove case for grant of anticipatory bail, their custodial interrogation is required to seize the vanity van, mobiles.