Allowed

Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Feb 2011APPA/160/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

India's High Court at Bombay quashed part of the appellate jurisdiction proceedings and granted bail to an applicant convicted in a stabbing case, ruling the incident was unpremeditated under Section 304 Part II IPC.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Session Case No.837 of 2005 against Rs.15,000/- bond with sureties, subject to reporting and movement restrictions.

Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

160.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2011 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1119 OF 2006

¶5

Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary for Applicant.

¶7

Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for State.

¶8

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 17, 2011.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P.

¶11

We are in agreement with the submission of the applicant that even if

¶12

the prosecution case is taken as it is, it is evident that the incident of stabbing occurred on the spur of the moment. It was not premeditated. The deceased arrived on the scene and attempted to intervene to separate the accused from PW 3 who were quarreling at the relevant time. Indeed, the deceased suffered three fatal injuries and succumbed to death. However, from the circumstances on record including the evidence of PW 1-brother

¶13

160.11

¶14

¶15

of the deceased that there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased, in our opinion, prima facie, the offence would come under the excepted category and would be punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has already undergone sentence of over five years. He is in jail since 29^th July, 2005. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the immediate near future as it pertains to year 2006. Presently, appeals of year 2002 are notified on the Board for hearing with regard to category of convicts in jail.

¶16

Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The Applicant Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal is directed to be released on bail in connection with Session Case No.837 of 2005 arising out of C.R. No.334/2005, if not required in any other case, on executing bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶18

(b) The Applicant shall report to the nearest Police Station of his residence on first Monday of every English Calender Month between

¶19

160.11

¶20

¶21

9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.

¶22

(c) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence immediately after being released and/or change of residence, if any from time to time to the Investigating Officer of the local Police Station.

¶23

(d) The Applicant shall not leave District Mumbai without prior intimation of 48 hours in writing to the local police station and also disclose his travel programme and the contact place where he would visit.

¶24

Application disposed of on the above terms.

¶25

(A.R.JOSHI, J.)

¶26

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devbahadur Jaikrushna Dagal 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

Damodar Govind Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ulfat Rajjak Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zahid Hussein Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivkumar Narsayya Renkuntla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashokkumar Sardarmal Parekh Vs S.V. Rajhans and Ors.

Ashok S/O Ratanchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra