Dismissed

Mr. Prakash @ Balya Bhagwat Bansode v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2009APPA/256/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applications for bail pending appeal were rejected as evidence clearly established the applicants' participation in the murder. However, expedient hearing was ordered due to the applicants' young ages, and liberty was granted for out-of-turn hearing once papers were prepared.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; appeals to be heard expeditiously; liberty granted to apply for out-of-turn hearing.

Mr. Prakash @ Balya Bhagwat Bansode Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 593 OF 2009 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2009

¶5

Mr. Kailas Bhairoba Sarole ..Applicant (Org.Accused No.1)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 256 OF 2009 IN

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2009

¶11

Mr. Prakash @ Balya Bhagwat Bansode

..Applicant

(Org.Accused No.2)

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶16

..Respondent

¶17

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 257 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2009

¶18

Shri Sunny @ Aakash Hemraj Belkhade

..Applicant

(Org.Accused No.3)

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶23

..Respondent

¶24

Mr. S.A. Kale i/by Mr. Rahul Kalnoorkar for applicant in Criminal Application No. 593/09. Mr. Nitin Jamdar for applicants in Criminal Application Nos.256 and 257 of 2009. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State.

¶25

¶26

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ.

¶27

November 18, 2009.

¶28

P.C.

¶29

All these applicants have filed separate criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.212, 213 and 214 of 2009 respectively.

¶30

In Sessions Case No. 489 of 2006 in all six accused were put on trial for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Pune by his judgment and order dated 1/1/2009 has convicted accused nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC and the said accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Act. Accused Nos.4 to 6 came to be acquitted from all the offences. These applications have been filed for bail by accused nos.1, 2 and 3 separately in their respective appeals.

¶31

The prosecution examined in all 42 witnesses, including the ballistic expert and medical officer, who conducted the post mortem. As per the prosecution case, Vijay Kamble son of PW 1 was shout at point range on 06/11/2005 at about 6 p.m. in Preeti Restaurant near Laxmi Narayan Theater at Pune and the bullets were fired by accused no.1 and accused nos.2 and 3 had conspired and abetted the offence.

¶32

We have gone through the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e. Amol

¶33

¶34

Borhade – PW 2 and Ashish Borhade – PW 3 as well as the evidence of the Experts i.e. the Medical Officer and the Ballistic Expert. The deceased died because of the bullet injuries as was the evidence before the trial court through the Medical Officer and as per the Ballistic Expert, the bullet was fired by the pistol which was claimed to have been recovered from accused no.1.

¶35

Mr. Jamdar, the learned counsel appearing for accused nos.2 and 3 submitted that even if one goes by the evidence of the eye witnesses, it is clear that they had not participated in any act, causing injury to the deceased and their presence was in the same capacity as PW 2 and PW 3 i.e. the friends of the deceased and accused no.1. The very same contentions raised before the trial court have been discarded by scanning the evidence. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no case made out to suspend the order of sentence and release the applicants on bail during the pendency of their appeals.

¶36

Hence, the applications are rejected.

¶37

However, looking at the ages of all the accused, we deem it appropriate that the appeals are heard expeditiously and, therefore, we grant liberty to circulate private paper book copies and as soon as the paper book is ready, they are at liberty to apply for fixing the date for the final hearing of these appeals on out of turn basis.

¶38

(R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Mr. Prakash @ Balya Bhagwat Bansode v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prakash @ Balya Bhagwat Bansode v. 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

Siddik Imemuddin Maniyar. Vs State of Maharashtra.

Ganesh Babusingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shashikant Maruti Barde

The State of Maharashtra Vs Khalil @ Khalid Ahmed Gulam Shaikh

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Shantaram Sapkal

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Shantaram Sapkal