Allowed

Sindhubai Bhagwan @ Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Aug 2006APPA/35/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a criminal appeal, allowed a bail application filed by the appellant, who was the mother-in-law of the deceased. The court granted bail based on perceived errors in the trial court's observations concerning the room of suicide. The substantive sentence was suspended pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on P.R. bond of Rs. 5000 with one or two sureties; substantive sentence suspended pending appeal.

Sindhubai Bhagwan @ Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2006

¶5

IN

¶6

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1099 OF 2004

¶7

 Sou.Sindhubai Bhagwan Bhosale

¶8

 alias Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar : Applicant.

¶9

 versus

¶10

 State of Maharashtra : Respondent

¶11

 Mr.Vipin Bidkar for the applicant.

¶12

 Mrs.S.A.Pai, APP, for the State.

¶13

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE

¶14

 S.A.BOBDE, JJ.

¶15

 DATED : AUGUST 04, 2006.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

 1. Heard advocate for the applicant -
 original accused No.3 and learned APP for the
 State. This is an application for bail filed by

¶18

¶19

 the original accused No.3 who is the

¶20

 mother-in-law of the deceased. Advocate for the
 accused No.3 submits that even though there was
 dying declaration against the present accused
 No.3, it has come in the evidence that the room
 in which suicide was committed by deceased was
 required to be opened forcibly. He drew our
 attention to the panchanama which supports his
 contention. He also drew our attention to para
 23 of the judgment of trial court wherein the
 Judge has observed as :-

¶21

 "Here, I would like to make it clear that
 the said door is not the only door to
 that kitchen room. It has come on record
 in the evidence of defence witness No.1
 Shantabai Kurhade that besides that door
 which was latched from inside, there is
 one more entrance to the kitchen room
 through the living hall."

¶22

 The learned APP also concedes that D.W.1
 Shantabai Kurhade has not where stated in her
 evidence that apart from the door which was
 latched from inside, there is one more entrance
 to the kitchen room through the living hall.

¶23

¶24

 Therefore, these observations are wrong and,
 therefore, in these circumstances, the applicant
 - accused No.3 is entitled for bail. Hence we
 pass the following order :-

¶25

 :ORDER:

¶26

 Criminal Application No.35 of 2006 is

¶27

 allowed.

¶28

 The applicant - original accused No.3 be
 released on her P.R. bond of Rs.5,000/-
 [Rupees Five Thousand only] with one or

¶29

 two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

 Her substantive sentence is suspended,

¶31

 pending appeal.

¶32

 Fine, if any, to be paid by the applicant

¶33

 before her release.

¶34

 Criminal Application is disposed of

¶35

 accordingly.

¶36

 [D.G.DESHPANDE,J]

¶37

¶38

 [S.A.BOBDE, J]

Sindhubai Bhagwan @ Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhubai Bhagwan @ Pratap Bhosale @ Pitekar 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

Ananta Vasant Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krushnath Bapu Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudarshan @ Babu Motilal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sau. Umadevi Ashokrao Kumbhar . Vs Shri Ashok Ananda Kumbhar and Ors. .

Prakash Vasantrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanif Haroon Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra