The Bombay High Court rejected a fresh bail application in a criminal appeal. The applicant, acquitted in a related case, argued for release, but the court denied bail due to evidence of involvement in the present offense and the severity of the seven-year sentence.
Bail application rejected; applicant denied release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[-1-]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8037 OF 2005
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.421 OF 2005
Anilkumar Ramkumar Rajput ..Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr.Vikas Shivarkar Advocate for Applicant
Ms.Shilpa V.Gajare A.P.P. for the State
...
CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
DATE : MARCH 21,2006
AT 2.35P.M. IN CHAMBER
P.C.
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant
and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The applicant is seeking bail. The applicant
had earlier preferred application for bail. The
said application came to be rejected on merits by
me by order dated 20th June, 2005. It is also
rejected as the learned A.P.P. had pointed out
that the applicant is involved in another case i.e.
[-2-]
C.R.No. 60 of 1999 of Turbhe Police Station. The
said case is under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.
Liberty was granted to the applicant to prefer a
fresh application for bail after disposal of the
said C.R.No.60 of 1999. Now the learned advocate
for the applicant has pointed out that the trial in
the said case is over and the applicant has been
acquitted thereunder. Hence, the applicant may be
released on bail.
3. As stated earlier, the application for bail of
the applicant was also rejected by me on merits.
The sentence imposed on the applicant is seven
years. The evidence of P.W.1 Shailendrakumar shows
that the applicant had showed him country made
"Katta" (firearm). Shailendrakumar has stated that
the applicant is one of the four persons who
entered in the car which he was driving and
thereafter, the accused persons ran away with the
said car. P.W.1 Shailendrakumar has identified the
applicant in the test identification parade as well
as in the Court. The evidence of Shailendrakumar
and other evidence on record clearly brings out the
involvement of the applicant in the present case.
Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to
grant bail. Application is rejected.
[-3-]
[V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail should be allowed considering the applicant has been acquitted in a related criminal case.
Whether the gravity of the offense and involvement in the crime warrants rejection of bail despite acquittal in another case.
Anilkumar Ramkumar Rajput
The State of Maharashtra
V.K.Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court