Allowed

Willson @ Hunny Mosses Murthy v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jun 2011BA/450/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder case, the High Court granted bail to the applicant on the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail. The Court also directed the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety; the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months.

Willson @ Hunny Mosses Murthy Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

BA-450-11.sxw

Dixit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2011

¶6

Willson @ Hunny Mosses Murthy ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sachin R. Pawar for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 24TH JUNE, 2011.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

One Urvashi Dhavle, wife of the Accused No.1-Arvind Dhavle, was murdered by the said Accused No.1 with the help of eight others. The Applicant is said to be one of the eight others. It is contended that, even as per the case of the prosecution, the Applicant was merely present at the scene of the offence and that he has not actually taken any part in the alleged assault. It is submitted that the Applicant had accompanied the Driver of the vehicle - one Sharad Sose - accused No.6. The case of the Investigating Agency is that the accused persons hired a car, which was being driven by the said Sharad Sose, for coming to the spot where the deceased was attacked and killed.

¶13

The said Sharad Sose has already been released on bail by this Court (Criminal Application No.1981 of 2010 decided on 6th May, 2010) (Coram : R.S.

BA-450-11.sxw

Dixit

Mohite, J.). While opposing the Bail Application filed by the said co-accused Sharad Sose before the Court of Sessions, the Investigating Agency had filed their say in which it was mentioned that the role of the said Sharad Sose and the Applicant was of accompanying the other accused who actually assaulted the deceased.

¶18

Without going into further details, what needs to be observed is that the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicant, to the effect that the case of the present Applicant is on par with that of the co-accused Sharad Sose, is correct. I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the Applicant on the principle of parity.

¶19

I am informed that the trial has not yet commenced. It appears proper to me, in the circumstances, to direct the trial to be expeditiously held.

¶20

The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety in like amount.

¶21

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose it of within a period of six months from today.

¶22

[ A.M. THIPSAY, J.]

Willson @ Hunny Mosses Murthy v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Willson @ Hunny Mosses Murthy 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Varun Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Frank Henry Morris Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dawood Gaffar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Ganesh Yellappa and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Balu Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashmi Suresh Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra