Allowed

Babaso Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jan 2010APPLN/64/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving assault and attempted murder. The court noted inconsistencies in the recovery of the weapon at hand and the long pendency of the trial as grounds for release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.30,000/ one or two sureties forming aggregate amount of Rs.30,000/ with conditions on reporting and non-tampering with evidence.

Babaso Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.64 of 2010

¶5

Shri Babaso Pandurang Patil ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for the applicant.

¶7

Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATED : 14th January 2010

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The applicant seeks bail in connection with an offence registered against him under C.R.No.18 of 2009 at Shirala police station, Dist. Sangli for an offence punishable u/s.307, 32, 504 and 34 of the IPC.

¶13

The prosecution case in short is that one Gorak P. Patil and the applicant assaulted Pandit Ganpati Patil, First Informant with sickle used for the assault. Statement of Mr.Vishwas Shamrao Chaugule was recorded on 3^rd June 2009 (copy at page 72). He is a shopkeeper from whom the sickle is alleged to have been purchased. He identified the

¶14

¶15

sickle which was shown to him as having been purchased from his shop. The sickle was recovered in pursuance of a discovery made by the applicant u/s.27 of the Evidence Act, under a panchnama dated 4^th June 2009. The sickle which was identified by the shopkeeper Vishwas Shamrao Chaugule shown and identified by him on 3^rd June 2009 i.e. a day earlier than its discovery. Prima facie, therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence. The applicant is in jail since June 2009. Considering the present pendency, there is no prospect of the trial being commenced and completed in the near future. In my view, applicant is entitled to a bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/ with one or two sureties to make up an aggregate amount of Rs.30,000/ subject to the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not threaten any of the prosecution witness and shall report to the concerned police station once every month between 1^st and 5^th of the British Calendar month. In the event of breach of any of the conditions, bail shall stand cancelled forthwith.

¶18

Babaso Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babaso Pandurang Patil 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

Rajesh Kondiba More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamalabai Maruti Alkunte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Narayan Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Uttam Ganpat Todkar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vasundhara Ashish Agnihotri

Nagesh Bhimrao Ukale Vs the State of Maharashtra