Allowed

Deepak Rajendra Dhende v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Nov 2004APPLN/4374/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enlarged the applicant on bail in connection with C.R.No. I-36/2004, noting a substantial contradiction in the prosecution case regarding the time of the incident and the applicant's location at that time.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No. I-36/2004 subject to posting of a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties and specific conditions regarding residence, reporting, and conduct.

Deepak Rajendra Dhende Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4374 OF 2004

¶4

 Deepak Rajendra Dhende ..Applicant.
 V/s.
 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
 -----
 Shri Nitin H. Sejpal for the Applicant.
 Shri V.B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for Respondent.
 -----
 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
 DATED : 04.11.2004
PC :-

¶5

 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
 Perused the record.

¶6

 2. The prosecution case is that the incident in
 question took place at around 12 O clock, in the
 midnight between 25th January, 2004 and 26th January,
 2004. Indeed, the two witnesses claim to have seen
 the applicant while assaulting the deceased. However,
 according to the applicant at the relevant time around
 12 O clock in the midnight between 25th and 26th
 January, 2004, he was in the Mira Road Police Station,
 registereing N.C. complaint in respect of the
 incident which took place between him and Ramesh
 Singh, Kamalesh Singh and Shivbachan Singh within the
 jurisdiction of that police station, which is atleast

¶7

¶8

 4 kilometer away from the place of incident. It is

¶9

 seen from the N.C. complaint as registered by the
 applicant that it was lodged at 00/10 hours. In this
 backdrop, it is submitted that assuming that the
 applicant must have immediately left the place when
 the incident in question was already over by that
 time. If the prosecution case was to be accepted as
 it is, prima facie, there is substance in the
 submission canvassed by the applicant. If it is so,
 at this stage, the Applicant deserves to get the
 benefit. Besides, the Applicant is in custody since
 January, 2004 and there is no prospect of early
 disposal of the trial. Accordingly, the appilcant
 deserves to be enlarged on bail on following
 conditions :-

¶10

 i) The applicant is enlarged on bail in
 connection with C.R.No. I-36/2004 registered
 with Mira Road Police Station, on executing
 personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.
 Twenty -Five thousand only) with one or two
 local sureties in the like amount.

¶11

 ii. The applicant shall not enter the
 jurisdiction of Mira Road Police Station

¶12

¶13

 during the pendency of the trial.

¶14

 iii. The Applicant shall inform the place of
 residence, where he intends to reside within
 one week from the date of his release on bail
 to the investigating officer as well as to the
 trial court.

¶15

 iv. The Applicant shall regularly report to
 the nearest police station from his residence
 once in a fortnight on Saturday of every
 english calendar month between 10 a.m. to 1
 p.m.

¶16

 v. The applicant shall co-operate for early
 disposal of the trial. If the trial court is
 of the opinion that the applicant is
 unnecessarily delaying the trial, that fact be
 recorded in the Rozanama, which can be a
 ground for cancellation of the bail.

¶17

 vi. The applicant shall not influence the
 prosecution witness or tamper with the
 prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

¶19

 3. Order accordingly.

Deepak Rajendra Dhende v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Rajendra Dhende v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Dolcie Fernandes Vs Vasant M. Shah and Ors.

Shri Anil Umrao Gote Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satyawan @ Sachin Vishnu Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Jagannath Ambilwade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shujauddin Habibullah Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

T.P. Paul and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra