Allowed

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Oct 2005APPLN/4291/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay considered a bail application in a criminal appeal involving convictions for murder and unnatural offences. The court observed weaknesses in the circumstantial evidence and concession by the investigating officer regarding the scooter's ownership, ordering the appellant's release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount and shall report to the Ratnagiri City Police Station once in a month.

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

AJN

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.4291 OF 2005 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.635 OF 2005

¶6

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar ... Appellant Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr. V.T. Tulpule with Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the applicant.

¶9

Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 24TH OCTOBER 2005.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1. The	applica	nt i	s convicted	for		offence	punishable
under section	302	of	the Indian	Pen	al C	ode (for	short,
"the IPC") and	se	ntenced	to suffer	RI	for	life. He	is
also convicted	for	the	offence	punish	able	under	section
377 of the	IPC	and	is sentenced	to	suffer	RI for	two
years. The	subs	tantive	sentences	are	orde	red to	run
concurrently. We		have	admitted		the	appeal	against

¶14

judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Today, we

¶15

are considering the bail application.

¶16

2.	We	have heard	Mr.	Tulp	ule, the	learned	counsel
appearing	for	the applicant.		He	has pointed	out	that the
applicant	was	on bail	during	the	trial and	his	conviction
is	based	only on	circum	stantial	evidence.	The	learned

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

counsel submitted that several

links

the

chain

circumstances are snapped and, therefore, the applicant

¶25

may be released on bail.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned A.P.P. for

¶27

the State.

¶28

4.		The	case	of the	prosec	ution	rests	on circ	umstantial
evidence.		The	pro	secution	has,	inter	alia,	relied on	the
fact	that	the	app	licant and	the	dece	ased	were last	seen
together;		that	the	scooter	used	by	the	accused was	found
abandoned,		the	re	covery of	wrist	watc	h of	the	accused
from	the	scene	of	offence,	the	disc	overy	of blood	stained

¶29

clothes of the accused at his instance and also the

¶30

discovery of blood stained stone.

¶31

5.	We	have	perused the	evidence	of	the Inve	stigating
Officer,	who		has categoricall	y stated	that	the	scooter
does	not	belong	to the applic	ant. In	our	prima	facie
opinion,	the f	inding	of wrist w	atch of	the	accused at	the
scene	of	offence	does not	inspire	conf	idence.	Prima
facie,	the	prosecut	ion has not	proved	that	it belongs	to
the	accused.		The clothes	have alleg	edly	been r	ecovered
from	the	open	place. Con	sidering the	f	act that	the
applicant	was	on	bail during	trial and	that	this is	a
case	which	rests	on circumstant	ial evide	nce,	we feel	that

¶32

the applicant should be released on bail. Hence, the

following order :

: 3 :

O R D E R

The	appella	nt	- M	ujahid Mur	tuza	Sak	harkar,
is	released	on	bail	on his	furnis	hing	bail
bond	in the	su	m of	Rs.10,000/-	with	one	or
two	sureties	in	the	like amount.		He	shall

¶37

report to the Ratnagiri City Police

¶38

Station, once in a month.

¶39

The application is disposed of.

¶40

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶41

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jairam Ramchandra Dive Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogendra @ Tillu Ramlal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mujahid Murtuza Sakharakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwat Dhondiram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs the Union of India and Ors.