The High Court granted bail only to applicant No.1, a 60-year-old convict, upon furnishing a bond. Bail was rejected for the other three applicants. The appeal was expedited with no final decision on conviction roles.
Released on bail for applicant No.1; Bail rejected for applicants Nos.2 to 4; Appeal hearing expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPA 128-2011
1
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2011
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433 OF 2010
1. Chandrakant Krishna Jadhav..Applicants
2. Prakash Babasaheb Jadhav
3. Vijaykumar Babasaheb Jadhav
4. Sarjerao Krishna Patil
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent
Mr.A.P.Mundergi, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Shekhar
Inagawale, for the Applicants
Mr.V.V.Purwant, Advocate, for the original
Complainant
Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent -
State
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:8TH JUNE, 2011
P.C.
.Heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties.
2.This is an application for bail by the
4 out of 18 convicts, who have been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section
304(II) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five
2 APPA 128-2011
years each. They have been attributed one
blow each by either iron rod or stick or by
blunt side of Axe on the head of one Ananda,
who died 5 days after the incident as a result
of the injuries sustained. The medical
evidence discloses existence of one injury on
the skull and therefore, the learned Counsel
for the applicants submits that the case 4
persons inflicting four blows is improbable.
He states that all the 4 persons have been in
jail as under trial prisoners for 6 months and
for one year after their conviction.
Therefore, they may be admitted to bail.
Other 14 convicts have already been admitted
to bail. The learned APP has strong objection
and she states that in fact, the blows
administered by the applicants led to death of
the victim. The applicants have already been
dealt with leniently by reducing their
complicity to offence punishable under Section
304(II) of IPC, and so the applicants may not
be admitted to bail.
3 APPA 128-2011
3.It would not be possible to sift the
evidence now to find out whose blow led to
death of victim when Appeal is admitted and
would be heard in due course to find out what
is the role of each of the applicants. Since
applicant No.1 Chandrakant Krishna Jadhav, who
was shown to be 56 years in the Judgment and
is stated to be 60 years, considering his
age, he may be released on bail on his
furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.5000/- with one or
more solvent sureties on the condition that he
shall report to the police station concerned
once in month. There is no question of
applicant Nos.2 to 4 admitting to bail. Their
bail application is rejected. Hearing of the
appeal is expedited.
4.Criminal Application is disposed of.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to applicant No.1 considering his age, and whether bail should be granted to applicants Nos.2-4 convicted under Section 304(II) IPC.
Whether the medical evidence supports the defense theory that only one blow among four inflicted could have caused death.
Whether the appeal regarding the conviction requires expedited hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrakant Krishna Jadhav
Prakash Babasaheb Jadhav
Vijaykumar Babasaheb Jadhav
Sarjerao Krishna Patil
The State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court