Allowed

Rakesh Rambhau Vasave v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011APPLN/4423/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application. The court held that the applicant being found alone near the scene and having left with the deceased were weak circumstances insufficient to deny bail, especially as the sole evidence was the unsupported statement of the deceased's wife residing elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety and directed to execute a P.R. bond.

Rakesh Rambhau Vasave Vs the State of Maharshtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

cran4423.11

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4423 OF 2011

¶6

Rakesh s/o Rambhau Vasava

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Mr. R.S. Shinde h/f Mr. A.G. Magare, advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V. Wagh, APP for respondent

¶12

CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J.

¶13

DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011

¶14

PER COURT:-

¶15

1 The applicant is arrested in C.R. No. 17 of 2011, registered with Molgi police station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r.w. 201 of I.P.C. The complainant Vijay Padwi found the dead body of an unknown person lying in the jungle and nearby the dead body, a sword and motor cycle cover was lying. The post mortem was conducted by showing the dead body that of an unknown person. The deceased Ramu has died on account of injuries on the vital parts of his organs. In the course of investigation, Kalpanaben wife of Ramu rendered a statement that on 5.4.2011 in

¶16

the evening Ramu came to her house and her husband joined Ramu and they went away on a motor cycle. She has further stated that

¶17

cran4423.11 -2-

¶18

applicant and Ramu used to go out on regular basis with applicant and therefore, she did not suspect any foul play. On 6.4.2011, the police showed the dead body of Ramu to Kalpanaben, which was identified as that of her husband. The present applicant was accosted by the police staff namey Mr. Monu in the night of 5.4.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. at a spot, which is reported to be about 5 kilometers away from the spot where the dead body was found. This Monu has rendered a statement that he found motor cycle parked near the spot and when he could not see any person nearby the motor cycle, he gave shouts to enquire as to whether anybody is present there. A response was given by applicant about his presence over there.

¶19

2 There is no recovery of any incriminating article at the hands of the present applicant. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that even if the version of Kalpanaben is accepted, the said circumstance is the only circumstance against the applicant and that by itself is not sufficient to come to a prima facie conclusion that the applicant had killed deceased Ramu. Learned advocate for the applicant claimed that finding applicant alone by itself is not an incriminating circumstance against the accused.

¶20

3 Learned A. P.P. Mr. Wagh, submitted that the applicant went

¶21

cran4423.11

¶22

-3-

¶23

alongwith the deceased, from the house of the deceased, is a circumstance against the applicant. He also submitted that finding of the applicant alone in the night is also a circumstance against the applicant. He submitted that if these two points are taken together, the role of the present applicant for the causation of death of Ramu is made out and that is why the applicant is said to be involved in the crime alleged in the F.I.R. According to the learned A.P.P. Mr. Wagh, the applicant has managed to take away Ramu and killed him and left him in the jungle. He therefore, submitted that the applicant should not be granted bail.

¶24

4 Having discussed the circumstances against the applicant, I am inclined to observe that merely because Ramu had left along with the applicant and merely because the applicant was found alone in the jungle, may be five kilometers away from the spot, by itself are weak circumstances against the present applicant. A question may arise as to when Ramu left the company of the present applicant. There is no other person, who had seen the present applicant in the company of Ramu, away from the house of deceased Ramu. Considering the above material, the applicant is entitled to benefit of doubt for the limited purpose of grant of bail and as such the applicant can be released on bail. As the only material against the applicant is the statement of Kalpanaben, who is staying away from the residence of

¶25

cran4423.11

¶26

-4-

¶27

the applicant there is no possibility of putting any pressure on her.

¶28

5 For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail and hence the following order is passed;-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) The bail application is granted.

¶31

ii) It is hereby ordered that the applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 17 of 2011 registered with Molgi police station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C.

¶32

iii) He be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He shall also execute a P.R. bond of Rs.20,000/-.

¶33

iv) The applicant shall report to the Molgi police station on second Saturday of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till the evidence of Kalpanaben is recorded.

¶34

(R.Y. GANOO, J.)

¶35

rlj/

Rakesh Rambhau Vasave v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Rambhau Vasave v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath Vasudev Yadnik Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nirmala Yashwant Kumkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath Subhash Kolge and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

State of Mah Vs Dnyandeo Kondiba Chemte

Akram Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Ambadas @ Babu Shivaji Telange Vs the Sate of Maharashtra