Allowed

Narayan Maruti Nivangune v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Dec 2009APPLN/4103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application petition sought bail for the applicant, who was arrested regarding a murder case involving kidnapping and strangulation. The High Court held that the evidence was insufficient to implicate the applicant as he lacked an eyewitness link and ownership of recovered items was unproven, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with restrictions.

Narayan Maruti Nivangune Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4103 OF 2009

¶3

Narayan Maruti Nivangune .... Applicant.

¶4

V/s

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent.

¶6

Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Mr Kuldeep Patil for the applicant. Mrs. S.P. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶10

Applicant has been arrested for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 201, 364, 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station vide C.R. No. I-72/2009.

¶11

A complaint was lodged by one Smt. Malan Renuse in which it is alleged that Surekha was her sister and she had a dispute in respect of a room with her brother-in-law and nephew Shailesh who were asking her to vacate the said room. According to the complainant, she had received information that Surekha had gone with Shailesh in his vehicle on 25/2/2009 at 1.00 p.m. and had not returned. A

¶12

¶13

missing report was lodged and, later on, it transpired that the dead body of Surekha was found in burned condition at a distant place. Accordingly, FIR was lodged and the said Shailesh and the present applicant were arrested. There is no eye witness to the said incident. Applicant is alleged to be a friend of Shailesh and it is alleged that he has procured the jeep and petrol in a plastic can. The only material which is on record is in the form of recovery of bangle pieces, safety pin from the applicant’s house and one ornament was recovered at the instance of the present applicant from the house of one person and a mobile phone was recovered which was given for repair in repair shop. Applicant has identified the person to whom the mobile phone was given for repair which belonged to the deceased. There is a recovery of partly burnt plastic bag from the place where the incident took place. It is further stated that the applicant had shown the place in his flat where the lady was strangulated and then taken in a jeep to the place where her body was partly burnt.

¶14

In my view, the material on record is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the applicant had participated in commission of the said offence. It is not established by the any material on record that partly burnt bangles and safety pins belonged to the deceased or that the ornament which was recovered at the instance of the present applicant belonged to the deceased – Surekha. There is no material to show that the deceased was murdered in the flat of the

¶15

¶16

applicant which was shown by the applicant to the police. There is no material to show that the applicant was seen in the jeep alongwith the deceased and the co-accused at a place where the incident had taken place. The nature of material on record, therefore, in my view is not sufficient to implicate the present applicant.

¶17

Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in C.R. No.I-72/2009 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall, however, not enter the jurisdiction of Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune, pending the hearing and final disposal of the criminal case. Applicant shall give his new residential address to the Superintendent of Jail before his release. Applicant shall report to the nearest Police Station from his new residence twice in a month.

¶18

6. Application is disposed of.

Narayan Maruti Nivangune v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Maruti Nivangune 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

Chandrahas Parshuram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaya Shyamsunder Varshney Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arshad Husain Baig Vs Direcstorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Mumbai and Anr.

Gyanendra Sonailal Saroj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Bapu Kachre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadeo Ankush Sangolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra