Allowed

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Sept 2010APPA/971/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant, convicted under Section 304(II) IPC, pending disposal of his criminal appeal, citing discrepancies in medical evidence and inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony that raise doubts about his complicity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties; shall report to Mangalwedha Police Station once a month.

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr appa 97110.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2010 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.564 OF 2010

¶6

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade

¶7

.. Applicant

¶8

Vs

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

Mr. J.D. Mane for the Applicant

¶12

Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶13

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶14

DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER,2010.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶17

2. The applicant-original accused no. 1 has been convicted under Section 304(II) of the IPC and sentenced to RI for five years. The appeal preferred by him against the said order has been admitted. Now, the applicant is seeking bail.

¶18

3. Learned advocate for the applicant stated that besides this case, the applicant has a clean record. This statement has not been controverted by learned APP.

¶19

4. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is five

¶20

¶21

cr appa 97110.doc

¶22

years and the applicant has undergone over three years of
imprisonment. He has further pointed out various
discrepancies in the evidence, which according to him
shows that it was not the applicant who assaulted
Vishwambhar with an axe.

¶23

5.Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
prosecution case is that the applicant-original accused
no. 1 assaulted Vishwambar on his head with the axe.
However, he pointed out that the evidence of the eye
witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence. He
specifically drew my attention to the evidence of PW 11
Dr. Ravindra which shows that Vishwambhar was assaulted
with hard and blunt object. Mr. Mane, further drew my
attention to Exh. 79 i.e copy of ADR Report in which it is
stated that original accused no. 2 was the person who
assaulted Vishwambar on the head with an axe. The
discrepancies brought on record are on material aspects
which raise doubt about complicity of the applicant in the
crime. Thus, looking to all these facts, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the order:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

1.Applicant Shashikant Vitthal Hegade be released on
bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- [Rs. Twenty
Thousand Only] with one or two sureties to make up
the said amount. The Applicant shall report to

¶26

¶27

cr appa 97110.doc

¶28

Mangalwedha Police Station once in a month till
disposal of the appeal.

¶29

2. Application is allowed in above terms.

¶30

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶31

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahdeo Dattu Esapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. Vs Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh and Anr.

Ratankumar Ranaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.