Remanded

Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2004WP/1510/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court stayed the trial of a sessions case for two months to allow the investigation agency to obtain custody of a respondent-acused imprisoned in Yerwada jail and complete the investigation, thereby ensuring a fair trial for all accused.

What did the court decide?

Trial of Sessions Case No.95 of 2003 stayed until 11th October 2004 for two months to allow investigation and custody of Respondent No.4.

Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1510 OF 2004

¶5

 Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar. .. .. Petitioner

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.Mihir Desai for Petitioner.

¶9

 Ms.U.V. Kejriwal, APP for Res.Nos.1 to 3.

¶10

 Mr.R.F.Lambay for Respondent No.4.

¶11

 ----

¶12

CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &

¶13

SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 11th August 2004

¶15

 P.C. :

¶16

 1. This Petition is filed by a son of one Navleen
 Kumar who was murdered on 19th June 2002.
 Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the three Accused in
 C.R. No.1-178 of 2002 registered by the
 Nallasopara Police Station in connection with that
 incident. Out of these three Accused, Respondent
 No.5 one Ganesh Patil is on bail. Respondent
 No.6-Samir @ Sami Ansari is in custody under the

¶17

-2-

¶18

 said C.R. As far as Respondent No.4 is concerned,
 he is a convict in an earlier offence and
 undergoing his imprisonment in Yerwada jail.

¶19

 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the
 Prosecuting Agency has not had sufficient time to
 complete the investigation against Respondent
 No.4-Manik Patil. In the meanwhile, the learned
 Sessions Judge at Palghar is insisting on
 proceeding with the trial. The Petitioner fears
 that if the trial proceeds now against Respondent
 Nos.5 and 6, it will proceed in a truncated manner
 and there could be difficulties in ultimately
 convicting the Accused.

¶20

 3. Ms.Kejriwal, learned APP for Respondent Nos.1,

¶21

 2 and 3, supports this submission of the
 Petitioner. She is instructed by the

¶22

 Investigating Officer one Mr.Kamble from State
 C.I.D. She states that from time to time efforts

¶23

 were made to obtain the custody of Respondent
 No.4, but for some reason or the other, on medical
 grounds, Respondent No.4 was not available to the
 Investigating Agency for more than a week. That
 has been the history as far as the investigation
 against Respondent No.4 is concerned. She,
 therefore, requests and states that if time is
 granted to the Prosecuting Agency, they will

¶24

-3-

¶25

 complete the remaining part of the investigation
 within two months from today. Within this period,
 they will obtain the custody of Respondent No.4
 for the remaining period which is available to
 them under the Statute for necessary
 interrogation.

¶26

 4. Mr.Lambay, learned Counsel appearing for
 Respondent No.4, submits that there has been
 lethargy on the part of the Investigating Agency.
 They had sufficient time and they have made wrong
 statements on earlier occasions before the Court.
 It is only because of this kind of situation that
 the learned Sessions Judge has ultimately observed
 that the trial must proceed now.

¶27

 5. We appreciate the submissions made by

¶28

 Mr.Lambe. At the same time, we cannot ignore

¶29

 that, in fact, a prejudice will be caused to
 Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as to Respondent
 No.4 also, if the trial proceeds in a truncated
 manner. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 will take defence
 on a particular line. That will get disclosed in
 a cross-examination of the witnesses of the
 prosecution. That will, in fact, create a
 difficulty for Respondent No.4. Therefore, it is
 in the interest of all the Accused as well that
 the trial proceeds together.

¶30

-4-

¶31

 6. In the circumstances, we accept the request

¶32

 made by Ms.Kejriwal, learned APP. The trial of
 Sessions Case No.95 of 2003 will stand stayed for
 a further period of two months i.e. until 11th
 October 2004. Within this period, it will be open
 to the Prosecuting Agency to get the custody of
 Respondent No.4 and complete the investigation and
 also to file an additional charge-sheet on the
 basis of the material that becomes available to
 them.

¶33

 7. In view of the above order, the Petition is
 disposed of.

¶34

 8. Authenticated copy of this order be provided.

¶35

(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)

¶36

(V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neel Mahendra Murali Kumar 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

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajan Pandurang Parkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sheela Rani Nandpal Vs Sunil Kumar Nandpal and Ors.

Pravin Dhabolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raghunath Ganpat Kalekar and Ors. Vs the Registrar (Inspection) High Court and Ors.

Shree Samarth Mitra Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.