Allowed

Balu Gorakh Gite v. State of Mah

Bombay HC13 Sept 2010APPLN/3578/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal application for bail under Section 439 CrPC allowed in a murder case (IPC 302/498-A). The High Court made an oral order releasing the applicant on bail subject to conditions including reporting and restriction on entering the native village.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.30,000/- with surety, reporting to police station weekly, and not entering village Gitewadi.

Balu Gorakh Gite Vs State of Mah — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 3578.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3578 OF 2010

¶4

Balu S/o Gorakh Gite,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Gitewadi, Tq. Patoda,
District : Beed .. Applicant

¶5

 VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station Patoda,
Tq. Patoda Dist. Beed

¶6

(Copy to be served on
P.P. High Court, Aurangabad) .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant
Mrs. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent-State

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶10

ORAL ORDER:-

¶11

1.This is an Application for bail under

¶12

section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

2.The applicant has been arrested and is
charge-sheeted for offence under section 498-A, 302
and 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(2) CRI.APP. 3578.2010

¶15

3.The applicant is husband of deceased Smt.
Rupali. The FIR lodged by mother of deceased Rupali

¶16

purports to show that the applicant used to do work
as driver at Mumbai. He had not however attended the
work for about 4-5 months and used to reside in the
native village i.e. Gitewadi. It is alleged that he
used to beat deceased Rupali under influence of
liquor. It is alleged that he visited house of his
in-laws and left deceased Rupali and the minor
daughter by name Ishwari at that house. He alone
went back to Gitewadi. Her mother again went to
village Gitewadi with Smt. Rupali and her minor after
one day and reached them to his house. On 17.5.2010
allegedly the applicant contacted the mother-in-law
on phone and demanded Rs.50,000/-. She gave amount
of Rs.50,000/- to him at Jamkhed. It is alleged that
at that time the applicant enquired with the mother-
in-law whether Rupali had been to her house. He
visited house of the mother-in-law and left at about
9.00 pm. Though, searched here and there, yet Rupali

¶17

was not found. On 21.5.2010, dead body of

¶18

Smt. Rupali alongwith minor female daughter was found

¶19

(3) CRI.APP. 3578.2010

¶20

lying in a valley at Sautada (Rameshwar). Therefore,
her mother gave FIR.

¶21

4.The investigation papers purport to show
that there is no direct evidence available against
the applicant. It is explicit that the Police
recorded statement of one Changdeo Gite and Ashabai

¶22

Gite about ill-treatment caused to deceased Rupali by
the applicant. They narrated before the Police that
on 16.5.2010 they had seen the applicant proceeding

¶23

with the deceased Rupali and the minor daughter on
foot at village Dhangar Javlaka. On enquiry he told

¶24

that they were proceeding to a hospital. The alleged
incident took place in the morning time when the said
witnesses were going on by road around 8.00 am. –
8.30 am. The post mortem report purports to show
that deceased Smt. Rupali had received crush fracture
of skull, crush fracture on right shoulder joint and
right as well as left elbow joint, fracture of right
side mandible and fracture of both knee joints as
well as ankle joint. The cause of death is
reportedly acute cardio respiratory attack due to

¶25

(4) CRI.APP. 3578.2010

¶26

hypo volcanic shock secondary to the head injury.
The internal organs such as thorax and abdomen were
found congested with presence of maggots. It is but
natural that time of death could not be located. The
rigor mortis was absent and the body was found to be
totally decomposed. The married woman and the minor
girl, no doubt, had fallen in the valley and died un-
natural death. However, the versions of the
witnesses, in absence of the proper assessment about
time of the deaths, may not be of strong potential
value to infer that the applicant was last seen with
the deceased just before their deaths. They saw him
near Dhangarwadi whereas the dead bodies were found
in the valley situated in the outskirts of village
Sautada (Rameshwar).

¶27

5.Considering these aspects, the applicant
deserves liberty on certain conditions.

¶28

6.In the result, the Application is allowed.

¶29

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing of bail bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- with

¶30

(5) CRI.APP. 3578.2010

¶31

one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court
of Sessions and on further condition that he shall
report his presence to the concerned Police Station
i.e. Patoda on each Tuesday and Saturday between
10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. and shall not contact any of
the prosecution witnesses. He shall not enter

¶32

village Gitewadi till the trial is over.

¶33

 Sd/-

¶34

arp

Balu Gorakh Gite v. State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Gorakh Gite v. State of Mah

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

Babasaheb Bhagwanrao Reddy Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Munja Balaji Komatwar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra

Sardar Fatesing Pawara and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bhanudas Baburao Gavali Vs Rohidas Sakharam Pawal

Avinash Mahadu Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atlas Products Private Ltd.,New Delhi through Its Director and Ors. Vs Shri Shripad Shriram Patke