Dismissed

Machis Tukaram Pawar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2007APPLN/3012/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for bail rejected by the High Court in connection with offences of murder and grievous hurt. The Court concurred with the Sessions Judge that the case involved day-light assault with eye witnesses and serious injuries, making it unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected on the grounds that there is prima facie evidence and the incident involved serious injuries and death.

Machis Tukaram Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3012 OF 2007

¶3

 1. Machis Tukaram Pawar.

¶4

 2. Bharat Rupchand Kale. ... Applicant.
 V/s.

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶6

 Kiran C. Shirguppe for the applicants.

¶7

 Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J.

¶9

DATED: 24th September 2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

----

¶12

 . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and

¶13

 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

 2. The applicants are seeking bail in connection
 with CR.No.23/2007 registered with Atapadi Police
 Station, district- Sangli for the offences punishable
 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 read with
 section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

 3. This application appears to have been moved by

¶16

 the applicants after getting the bail application
 rejected at the hands of the Sessions Court vide order
 dated 29th August, 2007 passed in Sessions Case

¶17

 No.144/2007. The learned for the applicants submits

¶18

 that the applicants are falsely implicated in the
 offence alleged. As against this, learned A.P.P.,
 appearing for the State submits that looking to the
 contents of F.I.R. the role of each applicant in
 commission of the offence is, prima facie;
 established so as to connect them with the offence

¶19

 alleged. There is also recovery from them. Under

¶20

 these circumstances, according to learned A.P.P., this
 is not a fit case for grant of bail.

¶21

 4. Having heard rival parties, having seen the

¶22

 order of the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions
 Judge in his order dated 29th August, 2007 has

¶23

 categorically mentioned that there are eye witnesses
 to the incident. Even some of the witnesses have

¶24

 sustained injuries at the time of incident. There is

¶25

 a prima facie evidence which points out broad
 day-light assault by the accused individually as well
 as pursuant to their common intention resulting in

¶26

 death of Vijya Pawar and grievous hurt to Doulusha.
 This aspect of the matter has also resulted in
 rejection of bail application of the applicants. I
 fully concur with the reasons recorded by the learned
 Sessions Judge. Having seen material on record, this
 is not a fit case for grant of bail.

¶27

 . Application is, therefore, rejected.

¶28

JUDGE

Machis Tukaram Pawar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machis Tukaram Pawar and Anr. 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

Khatib Imran Akhil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Annasaheb Hubale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharma Dattu Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shilpa Rajiv Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohtash Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Rasheed Hasainar Puttur Vs the State of Maharashtra