Allowed

Kasam Alisha Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Apr 2006APPA/376/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for bail filed by a convicted applicant under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court found merit in the submission that eye-witness evidence suffered from improvement and contradiction, leading to the granting of bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties and required to report to Lonavla Police Station once a month.

Kasam Alisha Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 ..(1)..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.376 OF 2006
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.956 OF 2005

¶4

 Kasam Alisha Shaikh ...Applicant.
Versus
 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶5

 Mr.M.S.Mohite, Advocate for the applicant.
 Smt.U.V.Kejariwal, APP, for the State.

¶6

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 20, 2006.
 P.C.:

¶7

 . Heard Mr.Mohite learned Advocate for the
 applicant and Smt.Kejariwal learned APP for the
 State.

¶8

 2. The applicant has been convicted under
 Section 302 of IPC. He is now seeking bail.

¶9

 3. As per the prosecution case, during the

¶10

 course of sudden quarrel, one blow was given by
 the applicant with knife in the stomach of Firoz.

¶11

 Firoz died on account of the said injury.

¶12

 4. Mr.Mohite, learned Advocate for the

¶13

 ..(2)..

¶14

 applicant has submitted that the case would not
 fall under Section 302 of IPC, but, it would fall
 under Section 304(II) of IPC. He has submitted
 that only one blow was given by the applicant to
 Firoz and that blow was given during the course of
 sudden quarrel. Mr.Mohite has submitted that
 looking to these facts, the case would not fall
 under Section 302 of IPC.

¶15

 5. Smt.Kejariwal learned APP for the State has
 submitted that there are two eye witnesses to the
 incident, i.e. P.W.2 Anwar and P.W.3 Tanvir. She
 has submitted that these two eye witnesses have
 clearly implicated the applicant.

¶16

 . In reply to this submission, Mr.Mohite
 learned Advocate for the applicant has pointed out
 that the evidence of P.W.2 Anwar, involving the
 applicant, is by way of improvement. He has drawn
 out attention to Para 4 of the evidence of P.W.2
 Anwar, wherein this witness has stated as under,

¶17

 " I had stated before Police that

¶18

 Kasam had assaulted Firoz. If this

¶19

 ..(3)..

¶20

 statement is not appearing in my statement

¶21

 of 22nd, I cannot tell reason for it."

¶22

 . Thus, from this statement of P.W.2 Anwar in
 his evidence, it does appear that the present
 applicant has been implicated by way of an
 improvement.

¶23

 6. As far as P.W.3 is concerned Mr.Mohite has
 pointed out that in his examination-in-chief,
 P.W.3 has stated that he knows all the accused
 before the Court as they are residents of Hanuman
 Tekadi. However, this witness in his

¶24

 cross-examination has admitted as under,

¶25

 " It is true that suddenly fights
 started. It is true that while this fight
 was going on, three persons came there in
 rickshaw. It is true that two persons who
 came there had chopper and knife in their
 hands. It is true that these three persons
 started assaulting me, Anwar, Firoz and
 Sharan with those weapons."

¶26

 ..(4)..

¶27

 . Mr.Mohite has submitted that the evidence
 of this witness in his cross-examination shows
 that it was not the present applicant, but, some
 other unknown persons, who had assaulted the
 deceased.

¶28

 7. After going through the evidence on record,
 we find much merit in the submission made by
 Mr.Mohite learned Advocate for the applicant.
 Hence we are inclined to grant bail. Hence the
 order :

¶29

 ORDER

¶30

 I. The applicant be released on bail
 in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen
 Thousand Only) with one or two sureties to
 make-up the said amount.

¶31

 II. The applicant shall report Lonavla
 Police Station, once in a month, till
 disposal of Appeal.

¶32

 8. Application is disposed of.

¶33

 ..(5)..

¶34

 (D.G.DESHPANDE, J.)

¶35

 (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Kasam Alisha Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasam Alisha Shaikh 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

Tarabai Dnyaneshwar Barne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nasweshwar Krishna Todkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vishram Kama Vanel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayeed Ahmed Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amjad Wajir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amitkumar @ Munna Rameshwar Pal Vs Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.