The High Court in criminal application proceedings granted bail to the applicant, who was in custody for over six months facing a murder charge, citing weak circumstantial evidence and lack of eye witnesses.
Released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to specified conditions.
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.
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2008
Ravi Chandar Piwal .. Applicant
V/s
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.Vikas Shivarkar i/b Mr.Vipin Bidkar for the
applicant.
Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY 2008
P.C. :
1. Heard.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 30th August
2007 and is charged with an offence of murder of Sanjay
Kisun punishable under sections 302 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Admittedly, there is no eye witness. Sanjay
left his home on 6th August 2007 at about 11.00 a.m.
along with his two friends Kana Pillay and Deepak.
- 2 -
Sanjay did not return home. His dead body was found on
11th August 2007. Nobody saw how Sanjay was killed.
There is no direct evidence connecting the applicant to
the crime. According to the FIR dated 11th August 2007
lodged by his father, Sanjay had left the house along
with his friends Kana Pillay and Deepak and not the
applicant. The statement of Prashant @ Pappu More dated
31st August 2007 mentions that Sanjay was last seen with
Babu, Shankar and Sanjay Dholakia.
4. The applicant is charged on the basis of
discovery of an iron rod at his instance. The post
mortem report shows several incised wounds and chopped
wounds. Prima facie, such wounds cannot be caused by an
iron rod.
5. Taking into consideration the nature of
circumstancial evidence and also the fact that the
applicant is in custody for a more than 6 months and
that trial is not likely to commence soon, the applicant
deserves to be granted bail subject to the condition of
attendance. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
The applicant be released on bail in connection with the
- 3 -
offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond
of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount
subject to the following conditions.
(a) The applicant shall report to the concerned
police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of
every British calendar month.
(b) The applicant shall attend every date to which
the case may be adjourned.
(c) The applicant shall not change his present
residence without prior intimation to the concerned
police station.
(d) The applicant shall not make any inducement or
give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses nor
he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(e) Any breach of the aforesaid conditions would
result in cancellation of bail.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant at the stage of investigation in a murder charge where he is in custody for more than six months with a trial unlikely to commence soon.
Ravi Chandar Piwal
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court