Dismissed

Sunil Vasant Salve and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2011APPA/62/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal appeal rejected a third bail application for an accused holding a cricket bat, noting evidence indicated complicity under Section 34 IPC, and allowed withdrawal of the application on terms requiring changed circumstances for a fresh plea.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to be withdrawn; fresh application requires ground of changed circumstances.

Sunil Vasant Salve and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

7.appa.62-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2011

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1060 OF 2009

¶8

Sunil Vasant Salve. ..Applicant.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra.

¶11

..Respondent.

¶12

Ms.Anjali Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 7^th FEBRUARY, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶17

This is third bail application by accused No.1. Earlier two applications however were withdrawn without arguments.

¶18

We were taken through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who are eye witnesses as well as PW-7 Dr.Surekha Yenge who has spoken about and proved the injuries caused to the deceased who succumbed to those injuries.

¶19

In our opinion, the evidence of Pws-1 & 2 clearly indicate complicity of the applicant. The fact that the Applicant was holding cricket bat and the stab injury which was the cause of heart rupture

¶20

¶21

7.appa.62-11

¶22

could not be attributed to the applicant does not take this argument any further for the simple reason that the prosecution case is that the Applicant and other accused with common intention assaulted the deceased on the given date. Section 34 of IPC has been applied by the prosecution and the trial Court on the basis of evidence produced has accepted the said case.

¶23

In the circumstances, no case for bail is made out. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant be permitted to withdraw this Application with liberty to file fresh Application at a later date. We have no difficulty in accepting the request for withdrawal. However, for filing the fresh Application, the Applicant will have to make out ground of changed circumstances to entertain successive bail application.

¶24

Accordingly, application is allowed to be withdrawn on the above terms.

¶25

Since application for bail is rejected, office to process the Appeal under caption “Convict in Jail” as per its turn.

¶26

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

¶27

(A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Sunil Vasant Salve and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Vasant Salve and Ors. 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

Mohammed Usman Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt.Shahista Sayed Haji Baitulla. Vs the Union of India.and Ors.

Kalim Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yunus Gause Pasha Khan Vs Catherine Lawrence Mathew and Ors.