Allowed

Akhtar Husain @ Tanaji Sanaulla Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Aug 2010APPLN/415/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Criminal CA No. 415 of 2010, the Bombay High Court permitted the accused to be released on bail for an alleged murder charge. The court held that the alleged possession of the deceased's phone and showing the crime spot were insufficient to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on bail on personal surety for Rs. 5,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount.

Akhtar Husain @ Tanaji Sanaulla Khan Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2010)

APPLN 415 OF 10.sxw

vks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 415 OF 2010.

¶5

Akhtar Hussain @ Tanaji Sanaulla Khan.. Applicant

¶6

-versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent.

¶9

Mr.Rahul Kate, for the Applicant.

¶10

Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State.

¶11

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 25^th August, 2010

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This is an application by the applicant to admit him on bail. The applicant is alleged to be involved in the murder of Appa Jadhav. Appa Jadhav was alleged to be murdered by his son Shrikant, the co-accused, with the help of the present applicant between 8.3.2009 to l9.3.2009 when the dead body was found. Appa Jadhav’s son Shrikant the co-accused, has been admittedly released on bail by order of this Court on 20.11.2009. The learned APP, submits that the applicant may be denied bail because he was found to be in possession of the Mobile phone of the deceased and also had in subsequent investigation shown the spot where the incident took place, as also the place from where wire was

¶14

APPLN 415 OF 10.sxw

¶15

¶16

purchased for the purpose of strangulation.

¶17

As to the first circumstance of the mobile phone of the deceased being found with the applicant is concerned, it was prosecution’s own case as per the statement of victim’s daughter Swati that the said mobile phone was given by co -accused Shrikant to the applicant. It is not necessary to comment upon the evidentiary value of the alleged panchnama wherein the applicant is stated to have shown the place of incident, since it did not lead to any discovery. Likewise on the slender thread of his showing the place from where he acquired the wire used for strangulation, it would be difficult to deny bail to the applicant, particularly since it is the case of prosecution that victim’s son wanted to kill the victim and applicant merely helped victim’s son in the criminal act. In view of this applicant be released on bail on his furnished PR bond for Rs.5,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount and on the same terms and conditions on which the co-accused Appa Jadhav’s son has been released on bail.

Akhtar Husain @ Tanaji Sanaulla Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Husain @ Tanaji Sanaulla Khan 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

Nitin Kisan More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Balaso Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Sambhaji Madne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hambirrao Shivaji Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Unmesh Hirachand Deshmane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shriram Bhujangrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra