Dismissed

Vishram Kama Vanel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 May 2009APPA/350/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the applicant's bail application in a murder case. The court rejected the applicant's new narrative provided by family members regarding the cause of death, noting inconsistencies with the prosecution case and dying declarations, and held that the settlement of property disputes did not justify granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail was dismissed. Liberty is granted to move for fixing the date of hearing of the appeal.

Vishram Kama Vanel Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 ( 1 )

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATIN NO.350 OF 2009

¶4

IN

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177 OF 2005.

¶6

 Vishram Kama Vanel .. Applicant
 v/s

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

 Mr.A.H.Solkar for the Applicant.

¶9

 Ms.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
 R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 5TH MAY, 2009.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 1. Applicant is convicted for offnces u/s.302, 451,
 323, r/w section 34 of IPC. It is the case of the
 prosecution that the applicant’s wife poured kerosene on
 the applicant’s brother’s wife and the applicant set her
 on fire with the burning stove. Applicant’s brother’s
 wife thus received burn injuries and she died. Bail
 application filed by the applicant has been rejected by
 this Court. This is his second application for bail.

¶14

 2. Brother of the applicant and his nephew (brother’s
 son) have filed affidavit cum declaration indicating
 that they have settled all their disputes with the
 applicant. Curiously in paragraph 3 of the affidavit it
 is stated that when the deceased, wife of the brother of
 the applicant was cooking food her clothes caught fire
 because of the bursting of stove. Due to bursting of
 stove she received burn injuries and later on she died.

¶15

 ( 2 )

¶16

 This story is contrary to the prosecution case.

¶17

 3. It is not possible to accept this story. May be the
 parties have now settled their property disputes. That
 does not mean that on that basis the applicant can be
 released on bail on a new version which prima facie
 appears to be a got up version. Prima-facie it appears
 to us that the applicant has tried to win over his
 brother so that he gets an order of bail. Such prayers
 cannot be entertained. The deceased has made dying
 declarations in which she has implicated the applicant.
 The Special Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying
 declaration has been examined. Hence prayer for bail
 cannot be entertained. Application is dismissed.

¶18

 4. Liberty to the applicant to move this Court for
 fixing date of hearing of the appeal.

¶19

 (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶20

 (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Vishram Kama Vanel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Kama Vanel 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

Shri Anant Chandru Wake Vs the Superintendent,Kolhapur Central Jail and Ors.

Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Mansoor Haji Iqbal Pankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Menaka B. Bhatia @Menaka Naren Nathwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parshuram Kashinath Chavan Vs the Superintendent and Ors.