Allowed

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Feb 2008APPLN/63/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal for bail, the High Court of Bombay rejected the Sessions Court's refusal to grant bail. The court quashed the earlier order and granted bail, citing lack of direct evidence and specific reports exonerating the applicant from the murder charge.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to specified conditions of residence, police attendance, court appearance, and no inducem

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2008

¶6

 Arun Raghunath Bhalkar .. Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

 State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

 Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant.

¶10

 Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State.

¶11

 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J

¶12

 DATED : 25th February 2008

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard.

¶15

 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with

¶16

 an offence punishable u/s.302 r/w section 34 of the
 Indian Penal Code registered under C.R.No.131 of 2007

¶17

 at Alibag police station.

¶18

 3. The applicant and the co-accused Digamber

¶19

¶20

 Sawant had previously filed a joint application for
 bail before the Sessions Court. By an order dated
 3rd November 2007 that application has been rejected.
 The applicant as well as the co-accused approached
 this court for bail by two separate applications.
 The application of the co-accused has been allowed
 who has been granted bail by this court. The
 prosecution case is that the applicant and the
 co-accused Digambar R. Sawant assaulted Satish More
 (the deceased) with iron rod and wooden log on 11th
 July 2007 and killed him. The First Information
 Report was lodged by Rajesh, the brother of the
 deceased, who on information received on telephone
 went to the spot and carried the deceased to the
 hospital. According to him when the deceased was
 being carried out to the hospital, he narrated to him
 that he was assaulted by the applicant and Digamber
 Sawant on account of the dispute over the commission
 in a land deal.

¶21

 5. The Sessions Judge rejected the application
 for bail principally on three grounds:-

¶22

 i) The names of the applicant were narrated to
 Rajesh by the deceased, while he was carried to the
 hospital in a autorickshaw.

¶23

¶24

 ii) Blood stained clothes were recovered from
 the body of the applicant.

¶25

 iii) Wooden log used for the crime was recovered
 at the instance of Digamber R. Sawant, the
 co-accused.

¶26

 6. As regards the contention that the deceased
 had mentioned the names of the applicant and Digamber
 Sawant while he was being carried to the hospital, it
 may be noted that Rajesh, First Informant in the FIR
 did not state in the FIR names of the assailants nor
 did he state that the deceased had told the names of
 assailants to him. On the other hand in the FIR, he
 has stated that the deceased was unconscious and was
 carried by him to the hospital while he was
 unconscious. In his statement the auto-rickshaw
 driver has not stated that any such information was
 given by the deceased to his brother.

¶27

 7. The Chemical Analyser’s report,a copy of
 which was handed over by the Advocate for the
 applicant, shows blood stains on the clothes of the
 co-accused and Digamber Sawant but specifically
 states that no blood was detected on the clothes of
 the applicant.

¶28

¶29

 8. The wooden log was not discovered at the
 instance of the applicant but at the instance of the
 co-accused - Mr.Digamber Sawant.

¶30

 9. No other evidence connecting the applicant
 directly to the crime was pointed out to him by the
 learned APP. In the circumstances, applicant is
 entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following
 order:-

¶31

 O R D E R

¶32

 . The applicant is released on bail on
 personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the

¶33

 like amount subject to the following conditions:

¶34

 i) The applicant shall not change his present
 residence without prior intimation to the police.

¶35

 ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned
 police station once a month between 1st and 5th day
 of the British Calendar month till the conclusion of
 the trial.

¶36

 iii) The applicant shall attend the Sessions Court on
 every date fixed for the case.

¶37

¶38

 iv) The applicant shall not directly or
 indirectly make any inducement or threats to any of
 the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

 . It is clarified that all observations made
 in this order are prima facie and Sessions Court
 shall not in any way be influenced by any of these

¶40

 observations at the trial.

¶41

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar 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

Somnath Chandrakant Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Dada Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivprakash @ Ramesh Iranna Soddi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manikrao Mahadev Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh @ Rajan Ramniklal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.