Allowed

Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jun 2007APPA/189/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of an application for bail filed by original accused persons in a criminal trial involving a murder case. The bench considered prior bail orders and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence regarding witness statements before granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on executing P.R. bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with one solvent surety, appearing fortnightly, paying fines, and not contacting prosecution witnesses.

Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.602 OF 2005

¶7

 Shri Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad

¶8

 and others : Applicants.

¶9

 versus

¶10

 The State of Maharashtra : Respondents.

¶11

 Mr.O.A.Siddiqui for the applicants.

¶12

 Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the State.

¶13

 Mr.M.S.Mohite for the original complainant in

¶14

 appeal.

¶15

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE

¶16

 SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶17

 DATED : JUNE 13, 2007.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

 1. This is an application for bail filed by
 original accused Nos.4 - Ravindra Shankar
 Gaikwad, accused No. 5 - Anna alias Babdya Kisan
 Gavare and accused No.7 - Pramod @ Bapu Kalumar

¶20

¶21

 Kanchan.

¶22

 2. Heard both the sides. We have granted
 bail to original accused No.9 Smonath Kalumar
 Kanchan by our order dated 10th April 2007.

¶23

 3. Original accused No.1 Gorakh Baban
 Kankate was granted bail by the Division Bench of
 this Court (comprising of D.G.Deshpande and
 S.A.Bobde, JJ) by an order dated 9.8.2006.

¶24

 4. Deceased in this case is Vilas Londhe and
 the FIR was lodged by his brother Prakash Londe.
 Motive alleged by the prosecution is previous
 enmity between the parties. However, it has come
 on record that at the instance of present accused
 a case was instituted against the complainant.
 There was compromise between the parties and, the
 complainant and others were acquitted and,
 therefore, according to the accused, there was no
 motive or intention for the accused to attack the
 deceased.

¶25

 5. In our earlier bail order we have noted
 from the proved facts that complainant Prakash

¶26

¶27

 Londhe, twelve days after the incident, wrote a
 letter to the Home Minister to find out the truth
 regarding the attack on his brother. This
 letter, according to the advocate for the
 accused, clearly indicates that Prakash Londhe
 was not an eye witness. While granting bail to
 accused Gorakh this court has taken into
 consideration these submissions.

¶28

 6. Apart from this, what we find is, the
 trial court in paragraph 11 found that even
 though according to Prakash Londhe - the
 complainant, there were four eye witnesses, they
 are P.W.2 Arjun Kokate, P.W.3 Ashok Mehtre, P.W.4
 Pramod Londhe and P.W.5 Rajesh Taware, but the
 trial Court found that in his FIR (Exhibit 66)
 complainant Prakash Londhe did not inform the
 police that on 2.3.2002 he has asked the other
 witnesses to gather near Maruti temple. P.W. 4
 Pramod also made an improvement in this regard
 i.e. getting the message of phone from Prakash
 Londhe to come to Maruti temple. In the evidence
 of P.W. 3 Ashok Mehtre also there is an
 improvement. Therefore, three wintesses have
 made improvements in this important aspect of the
 matter. Considering therefore over all view of

¶29

¶30

 the matter and the circumstances noted above,
 this application is required to be allowed.
 Hence we pass the following order :-

¶31

 :ORDER:

¶32

 Criminal Application No.189 of 2007 is
 allowed.

¶33

 Applicants - original accused Nos.4 -
 Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad, accused No. 5
 - Anna alias Babdya Kisan Gavare and
 accused No.7 - Pramod @ Bapu Kalumar
 Kanchan be released on executing their
 P.R. bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with one
 solvent surety each in the like amount.

¶34

 They will mark their presence to Kalbhor
 Police Station, Pune once in a fortnight
 between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till the
 appeal is decided.

¶35

 Substantive sentence of the

¶36

 applicants/accused is suspended, pending
 appeal.

¶37

¶38

 Fine, if any, to be paid by the

¶39

 applicants/accused before their release.

¶40

 Applicants/accused shall not try to
 contact any of the prosecution witnesses
 or will not try to influence any one of

¶41

 them directly or indirectly.

¶42

 Criminal Application is disposed off
 accordingly.

¶43

 [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.]

¶44

 [SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.]

Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Shankar Gaikwad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wilson Benjamin Castolino Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Danesh Nazir Kazi

Balgounda Daulata Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Nathu Keru Bhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash @ Appa Haribhau Londhe Vs Gorak Baban Kankate and Ors.

Sushila Khimji Rambhia Vs the State of Maharashtra