Single judge rejected prior bail order findings regarding assault, noted witness statement did not show applicant assaulted, and granted bail to youthful applicant pending long-trial.
Release of applicant on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3793 OF 2009
Govind Ashok Shahane...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent
Ms.Pranali Kakade for the Applicant.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik for the State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
P.C. :-
1Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for
the State.
2This is a second application for bail. His
earlier application was rejected by this Court by
order dated 28th January, 2009. Counsel for the
applicant invited my attention to para 2 of the said
order in which it has been mentioned that the
applicant assaulted the deceased with a sickle. In
2
the said order, it is also mentioned that two
sickles were recovered at the instance of accused
no.1 i.e. Bunty Pawar.
3Counsel for the applicant invited my
attention to the statement of Mahesh Suresh Kamathe.
It is submitted that the said witness has nowhere
stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased
with a sickle. She submitted that there is only
reference in the said statement that the applicant
had taken the sickle from the hand of the co-accused
Mangesh Khare and had proceeded towards the place
where deceased Monu was lying in an injured
condition. She submitted that therefore, eye witness
does not state that the applicant had assaulted the
deceased with the sickle. She submitted that apart
from this witness, there is no other evidence on
record to implicate the applicant in the said case.
4Learned APP also fairly submitted that the
said statement of the eye witness which is recorded
3
by the police only mentions that the applicant had
proceeded with the sickle to the place where the
deceased was lying in an injured condition.
5Counsel for the applicant also submitted
that the trial has not yet begun and the charge also
not framed and the trial is not likely to be over in
the near future. It is submitted that under these
circumstances, the applicant who is a young boy of
19 years of age deserves to be released on bail.
6I have perused the statement of the eye-
witness. The submission of the learned Counsel for
the plaintiff appears to be correct. In the said
statement, the eye-witness does not state that he
had seen the applicant assaulting the deceased with
the sickle. The observation made in the earlier
order appears to be incorrect. Be that as it may,
taking into consideration the fact that the
applicant is in jail since last one and half year
and since the trial is not likely to be over in the
4
near future, secondly, the applicant is of 19 years
of age and has no prior antecedents, the applicant,
therefore, deserves to be released on bail subject
to certain conditions being imposed on the
applicant.
7The applicant be released on bail in the
sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount. The applicant shall report to the
concerned police station twice in a month. He shall
not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
8The application is, accordingly, disposed
of.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second bail application is maintainable after a prior rejection pending trial.
Whether the applicant satisfies the requirements for release on bail considering the prosecution witness statement and his age.
Govind Ashok Shahane
The State of Maharashtra
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court