Partly allowed

Mhalappa Chandanna Pujari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Dec 2005APPLN/7236/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application regarding a pending case involving sections 302, 201, 147, and 148 IPC, the court rejected bail for applicants 1 and 2 but enlarged applicant 3 on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, weekly reporting, and prohibitions on tampering with witnesses. The order explicitly states no findings on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for applicants 1 and 2; bail granted for applicant 3 subject to personal bond, sureties, weekly reporting, and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

Mhalappa Chandanna Pujari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7236 OF 2005

¶4

 Mhallappa Chandanna Pujari
 and others Applicants

¶5

 versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶7

 V.V.Purwant for applicants.

¶8

 R.Y.Mirza, APP for respondent.

¶9

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 6th December 2005

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. The three applicants have been arrayed as
 accused pursuant to CR registered with Akkalkot
 (South) Police Station bearing No.39/2005. The
 offences alleged are under sections 302, 201, 147
 and 148. The FIR was lodged on 25th May 2005 by
 one Nagappa Maruti. He contends that his brother
 Devappa had married daughter of deceased. The
 land of applicant no.1 is adjacent to the land of
 wife of brother of Nagappa. There was a dispute

¶13

 after the first applicant purchased the land
 about common boundary (Bandh). The dispute
 thereafter developed between Devappa and

¶14

 ((-2-))

¶15

 Mahalappa. A complaint was filed by applicant
 no.1. It is alleged that on 20th May 2005
 Devappa left his place to attend a social
 function. He did not return and upon inquiries
 being made subsequently the dead body of Devappa
 was discovered. It was thrown in a well. There
 were injuries on the body. The allegation is
 that the applicants herein along with other are
 responsible for the death of said Devappa. The
 specific role assigned to the applicants 1 and 2
 is that injuries were inflicted on the head, back
 and legs of the deceased and thereafter the body
 was thrown in the well. The injuries are caused
 by sharp aged weapon.

¶16

 2. Shri Purwant - learned counsel appearing for

¶17

 the applicants states that the co-accused have
 been released on bail by this Court. He also
 fairly states that at the instance of some of the
 applicants, recoveries were made. However, the
 applicant no.3 has absolutely no role to play.
 There is no recovery at his instance. The case
 of the present applicants is similar to that of
 the co-accused Shrishail Pujari.

¶18

 3. With the assistance of Shri Purwant and Shri
 Mirza, I have perused the materials. It is very

¶19

 ((-3-))

¶20

 clear that as far as applicant nos.1 and 2 are
 concerned, at their instance, one sickle and
 sword have been recovered. However, as far as
 applicant no.3 is concerned, his case appears to
 be on par with the co-accused who have been
 enlarged on bail.

¶21

 4. The above facts are not seriously disputed by
 learned APP..

¶22

 5. Hence, following order :-

¶23

 i) Application for bail made by applicant nos.1

¶24

 and 2 stands rejected.

¶25

 ii) However, applicant no.3 is enlarged on bail
 in connection with CR No.39/2005 registered with
 Akkalkot (South) Police Station, subject to
 furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/-
 (Rs.Fifteen thousand only) with one or two
 sureties in the like sum;

¶26

 iii) The bail is granted subject to condition
 that till the conclusion of the trial, the
 applicant no.3 will report to the concerned
 police station once in a week;

¶27

 ((-4-))

¶28

 iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that
 the applicant no.3 shall not, directly or
 indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any
 prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner
 tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶29

 v) The applicant no.3 shall co-operate with the
 learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of
 the trial. Any attempt by the applicant no.3 to
 delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation
 of bail.

¶30

 vi) Any observation made in this order shall not
 be construed as any finding or any expression of
 opinion on the merits of the case at the time of
 trial.

¶31

 vii) Application is disposed of in the above
 terms.

¶32

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Mhalappa Chandanna Pujari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mhalappa Chandanna Pujari and Ors. 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sudhir @ Rahul Kundalik Chavan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Uday @ Dadya Jaysing Dhavan

Mangesh Shankar Khilare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mhalappa Chandanna Pujari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajaram Sidhu Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chamanlal S/O. Mine Ram Vs Union of India and Anr.