Allowed

Shivanand Baburao Sakhare v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC16 Dec 2009APPLN/4109/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of murder. Despite circumstantial evidence including a blood group mismatch on recovered items, the Court found no incriminating circumstances sufficient to deny bail and ordered release on surety. This document serves as a bail order rather than a substantive analysis of the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with surety of Rs.20,000 and execution of PR bond; restriction on leaving jurisdiction.

Shivanand Baburao Sakhare Vs the State of Mah — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

{1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4109 OF 2009

¶4

Shivanand s/o Bapurao Sakhare Age-40 years, Occ-Business R/o Ashok Chowk, Omerga Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad

¶5

APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Murum Police Station, Murum Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.Niteen V.Gaware, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State

¶10

[CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.]

¶11

DATE: 16^th December 2009

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.136/2008 registered with Murum Police Station, DistOsmanabad for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

{2}

¶15

Investigation in this case is over and charge sheet is filed before the competent court on 9^th October 2009. The applicant is arrested on 27^th July 2009 and since then he is in jail.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation.

¶17

It appears that that on 27^th November 2008, complaint came to be lodged in Murum police station at CR No.136/2008 by the present applicant himself. It is alleged that the deceased son of the applicant had been to the shop of the applicant where he was present till noon time and thereafter, when the complainant, present applicant, went to the shop he found that his son was not there and hence he made inquiry with the neighbouring shop owners, but could not found him. Till the evening, he searched for his son, but could not succeed. Hence, inquiry was made with the relatives at different places. On the next day, dead body of the son of the applicant / complainant was found on Murum-Kartekur road. It was noticed that the neck of the deceased was strangulated with small rope and the deceased had sustained injury on his head and blood was oozing from the same. Cotton swab was found forced in the mouth of the deceased. Pursuant to the said incident compliant came to be registered against unknown persons.

¶18

It appears that statements of certain witnesses are

¶19

{3}

¶20

recorded during the investigation. One rope and a pot is recovered from the shop of the applicant / complainant. On the basis of said evidence, the applicant came to be arrested on 17^th July 2009.

¶21

According to learned counsel for applicant, this is a case where there is no direct evidence to implicate the accused in connection of the said offence and the case rests on circumstances and on suspicion the applicant is arrested. It is also urged that the material recovered from the shop of the applicant i.e. rope, pot and cotton swab, on which blood was found, is of the same group that of the deceased. Other than this there is no evidence against the applicant.

¶22

According to learned APP, the blood, found on the articles recovered from the shop of the applicant matches with the blood group of the deceased. Blood group of the deceased was “B” whereas blood group of the applicant is “O”. In the premise, there is every possibility that the applicant is the culprit.

¶23

Considering the submissions, it is clear that this is not a case of direct evidence, but the same rests on circumstances. An application is moved by the investigation agency for permission of Narco test of the accused. It is a fact that the applicant is in custody since 17^th July 2009, however till this date no application is moved for the narco test of the applicant.

¶24

{4}

¶25

Considering the papers, other than the articles recovered from the shop of the applicant, there is no incriminating circumstance against the applicant. In the premise, as a case is based on circumstance, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed. Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/and on executing PR bond in the like amount. Applicant is directed not to leave the jurisdiction of murum police station, without prior permission in writing from the Investigating officer, till commencement of the trial. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

drp/criapln4109-09

Shivanand Baburao Sakhare v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanand Baburao Sakhare v. the State of Mah

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

Dilya Alias Bhika Ranchood Parmar and Anr. Vs State of Mah

Maniram Padmsing Thapa Vs the State of Mah

Dattatraya Bhausaheb Pansare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwan@Jivan Raoji Bhaskare Vs the State of Mah

Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Nalge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Nasir Shaikh Kadar Vs the Stae Oflmaharashtra