Allowed

Bapu Pundlik Patil v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC18 Aug 2011APPLN/3452/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed by Bapu Pundlik Patil in an FIR involving murder and arson under the IPC and Bombay Police Act. The High Court allowed bail after noting that the investigation was completed, the chargesheet was filed, and the accused was on similar footing to a co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bank Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the condition that he shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evide

Bapu Pundlik Patil Vs the State of Mah — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶3

Court's or Judge's orders

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3452 OF 2011

¶5

BAPU PUNDLIK PATIL VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAH

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Choudhari N. L. APP for Respondent(s): Mr. G.R.Ingole.

¶8

... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: August 18, 2011 ...

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail, in connection with Crime No.11/2011, registered at Marwad Police Station, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under section 302, 143, 147, 457, 448, 452, 427, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

¶11

It appears that crime has been registered on the basis of dying declaration of one Lady namely Sangita Patil, in respect of the occurrence of the incident on 18.2.2011. It is alleged that on the previous day, person namely Gotu, who is nephew of the husband of the deceased had come to the house of deceased in night time and he had behaved in indescent manner with her, when her husband was not at home.

¶12

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶14

Court's or Judge's orders

¶15

Thereafter, said lady Sangita contacted her brother and father and accordingly, they went to village of the deceased. There was some quarrel between relatives of the deceased on one side and relatives of Gotu on the other side.

¶16

It is also alleged that, after said quarrel, applicants come infront of the house of deceased. First dying declaration which was recorded on 19.2.2011, deceased Sangita made allegations that Sudam Shantaram, Raju Pandurang and applicant herein Bapu Patil took out kerosene can from her house, and Sudam poured rockel on the person of the victim and lit match stick and set her ablazed. In the second Dying Declaration, which was recorded on 19.2.2011, at about 12.40 hours, deceased has made allegations that all the three persons namely Sudam, Raju and Bapu set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her person, where as third dying declaration, which was recorded on 19.2.2011 at about 04.05 hours, in which she made allegations against only Sudam Shantaram Patil, who allegedly poured kerosene, on her person and set her on fire. Thus, apparently, there are variances in the said dying declarations and it appears that main role ascribed in the occurrence of the incident is to the Sudam

¶17

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶18

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶19

Court's or Judge's orders

¶20

Shantaram Patil.

¶21

Moreover, learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out that alleged overt act attributed to the applicant herein and Rajendra Patil is almost on the similar footing and Rajendra Patil has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 27.7.2011 and submitted that applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also submitted that investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody.

¶22

In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant herein namely Bapu Pundlik Patil, be released on bail, on furnishing P.R.Bond, in the sum of Rs.15,000/- [Rs. Fofteen thousand], with one surety in the like amount, on the condition that, applicant shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, whatsoever, directly or indirectly. Present application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

AAA/***

Bapu Pundlik Patil v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Pundlik Patil v. the State of Mah

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

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Mahesh Manohar Lad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah Thr. Pp

Narayan Motilal Kabre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satpalsingh @ Raja Jeetsingh Pujari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Santosh Sukhdev Waykar Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Vimalbai Madhukar Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra