Allowed

Anil Annasaheb Hubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2007APPLN/2734/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an arsenic poisoning case (Sections 396, 397, etc. IPC). Considering the investigation completion, prior bail to co-accused, and potential lack of reliability in identification parade conducted late, single Judge allowed bail on sufficient bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties and six specific conditions including reporting weekly and not tampering with evidence.

Anil Annasaheb Hubale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2734 OF 2007

¶4

Anil Annasaheb Hubale ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶5

Mr A. P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate with K. S. Patil Advocate for the applicant. Mr Rajesh More, A.P.P for the respondent.

¶6

CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 20.9.2007.

¶7

P . C.

¶8

1 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and

¶9

the learned APP for the State.

¶10

Perused the application and the material

¶11

available on record.

¶12

The applicant- accused arrested in C.R.No. 19 of 2007, registered with Uran Police Station, Raigad for the offence under Sections 396, 397, 342, 412, 120 (B) of the I.P.C., is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

The present applicant-accused came to be

¶14

arrested on 4.2.2007 and since then he is in jail. He has moved bail application in Sessions Court which came to be rejected on 9.4.2007.

¶15

[ 2 ]

¶16

Mr Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant

¶17

submits	that		the test	id	entificati	on	parade of	the
accused	was	co	nducted	after	4	6	days [i.e.	on
13.4.2007]	after		the c	ommiss	ion		of the	offence
alleged.	That	in	the	F.I.R.,	it	is	mentioned that	two
persons	had t	heir	face	cover	ed.	The	name of	the
present	applicant		is not	to	be	found	in the	F.I.R.
According	to		him,	accus	ed-applic	ant	appears to	have
been	implicated		on	the	basis	of	mobile con	versation
and the	informa	tion	that	was	ex	tracted	from the	mobile
numbers	of o	ne	Nilesh	Wag	h.	Mr	Mundargi tried	to
demonstrate	that		if the	pros	ecution	wa	nts to rely	on

¶18

this evidence only, then possibility of acquittal of

¶19

the accused cannot be ruled out.

¶20

Two accused persons namely, Milind Pawar, and

¶21

Amar	Ramnath	Bhagat		are alre	ady	enlarged on ba	il	under
the	order	of	the	learned	Ad	hoc Additional		Sessions
Judge	Raigad in	Cri.		Misc.	Appln.	No. 638	of	2007.

¶22

The investigation is complete. The charge sheet has

¶23

also been filed.

¶24

Considering the factual aspect brought on

¶25

record	and	the	bail	granted	to the	other	two		accused
persons	and		completion	of	investigation,	there	is		no
reason	not	to	grant	bail	to the	applicant.		I	am

¶26

inclined to grant bail to the applicant on following

¶27

terms and conditions.

¶28

[ 3 ]

¶29

	a] The	appli	cant arrested	in connection	with
C.R.No.	19	of	2007, regist	ered with	Uran
Police	Station,	Raiga	d for the	offence	under
Sections	396,	397,	342, 412,	120 (B) of	the
I.P.C.,	shall	be e	nlarged on	bail subject	to
furnishing	a	person	al bond of	Rs.	50,000/-
with	one or	two	local sureties	to make	of the
said					amount.

¶30

b] The applicant shall report to the above Police Station once in a week i.e. Monday in between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. c] The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the Investigating Officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail.

¶31

d] The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶32

e] The applicant shall co-operate with the

¶33

[ 4 ]

¶34

learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal
of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to
delay the trial may be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
f] 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.

¶35

Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶36

(V.C.DAGA,J)

Anil Annasaheb Hubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Annasaheb Hubale 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

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anant Gajanan Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjitsingh Premsingh Dasana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khatib Imran Akhil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharma Dattu Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Ankush Kawade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra