Allowed

Shahnur Babulal Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Aug 2012APPA/1223/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the original Accused No. 2, Shahnur Babulal Mulani, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, pending the final disposal of her appeal. The court noted the applicant was a woman in custody for over six years with no criminal antecedents and significant doubts regarding the identification of the deceased's body in the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted pending final disposal of appeal in sum of Rs. 15,000 with sureties, subject to reporting to police station every quarter.

Shahnur Babulal Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

903-appa-1223-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1223 OF 2012 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.676 OF 2008

¶5

Shahnur Babulal Mulani

¶6

.. Applicant/ Original Accused No.2.

¶7

V/s. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶8

Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves, for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA &

¶10

SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.J.

¶11

DATE : 9^th AUGUST, 2012.

¶12

P.C:

¶13

1 In this application, the Applicant is the original Accused No.2.

¶14

The application is for grant of bail, pending the final disposal of the Appeal.

¶15

2 The Applicant has been convicted along with Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Applicant has been sentenced to undergo life

1 of 4

S.R.JOSHI

903-appa-1223-2012

imprisonment. The Applicant alongwith the Accused No.1 have been also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal code. Applicant is in custody from 17^th August, 2006.

¶20

3 The allegation against the Applicant and her coAccused is of committing murder of one Ranjana S. Kambale. The prosecution case is that the dead body of the deceased was found on 15^th August, 2006.

¶21

4 The submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that there is no evidence on record to show that the dead body found in the well on the property of PW1 Vilas Mane was of the deceased Ranjana. The learned Counsel for the Applicant invited our attention to the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including PW1 Vilas Mane. The learned Counsel pointed out that though the inquest panchanama records that PW1 disclosed the identity and name of the deceased, the deposition of PW1 shows that he did not identify the dead body and in fact, he asked his labourer one Mr. Hanumant to verify the dead body so found in the Well. It is submitted that in the absence of establishing the identity of the dead body, the offence was not at all proved. The learned APP opposes

¶22

the application by pointing out that apart from the other material on record, there are strong circumstances to prove that the murder of the

2 of 4

S.R.JOSHI

903-appa-1223-2012

deceased has been committed by the Applicant. He submitted that there is no reason to grant bail considering the strong evidence on record. On instructions of Assistant Police Inspector of Vairag Police Station vide communication dated 9^th August, 2012, he stated that except the offence the subject matter of the Appeal, there is no other offence registered against the Applicant.

¶27

5 We have perused the impugned Judgment and notes of evidence in the light of the submission that the identity of the dead body is not established. We have examined the nature of accusation against the present Applicant who is the Accused No.2. We find that the Applicant who is woman, in custody from 17^th August, 2006. There are no other criminal antecedents of the Applicant.

¶28

6 Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that the Applicant who is a woman is in custody from 17^th August, 2006, we find that a case is made out for grant of bail, pending the final disposal of the Appeal.

¶29

7 Hence, we pass the following order:

¶30

(i) Till the disposal of the Appeal, the applicantaccused

¶31

No.2 Shahnur Babulal Mulani shall be enlarged on bail in the

¶32

sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) subject to furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

3 of 4

S.R.JOSHI

903-appa-1223-2012

(ii) Bail is granted subject to the condition of the Applicant reporting to the Vairag Police Station once in a every quarter till the final disposal of the Appeal.

¶37

(iii) In the event of any breach is committed by the Applicant, it will be open for the State Government to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶38

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) (A.S.OKA.J.)

¶39

4 of 4

¶40

S.R.JOSHI

Shahnur Babulal Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnur Babulal Mulani 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

Shridhar Sumant Vagal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Dattatray Yashwant Dal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Ramzan S/O. Vazir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Uttam Suryavanshi and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Rajaram Kusalkar and Ors.

Pradip Sakharam Sheteye Vs Prakash Vasant Kolwalkar and Anr.