The court rejected an application for bail in a case involving an offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, relying on the earlier rejection of the applicant's bail petitions on merits due to his role as the main assailant.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2009 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.455 OF 2008
Prakash Jayendra Shete V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
..Applicant
.. Respondents
Ms.Rashmi Gangawane i/b.Mr.Ganesh Gole for the Applicant. Mr.Amit Shetye i/b.Amit Borkar for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J.
DATED : MAY 4TH, 2009.
P.C.
Heard rival submissions for some time.
1
with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, present applicant accused No.1 alongwith three more accused, was convicted and sentenced to suffer R/I for five years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. Reportedly, present appellant accused No.1 is the main assailant who assaulted the victim causing severe injury attracting the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Mainly, considering said factual position earlier bail applications preferred by present applicant accused No.1 was rejected by the Court, though bail applications of accused Nos. 2 to 4 were separately allowed. This was probably on the premise that they were associates and not the actual assailants as can be spelt out from the order of rejection of earlier bail.
(A.R. JOSHI, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bail application should be allowed after a prior bail application was rejected on merits considering the applicant as the main assailant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prakash Jayendra Shete
State of Maharashtra
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
