Partly allowed

Murli Dnyanoba@Dnyaneshwar Tate and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012APPLN/3397/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad disposed of two bail applications arising from a murder and assault charge. The court granted bail to one applicant but dismissed requests for two others, distinguishing them based on evidence and alibi viability.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Murli Tate on PR bond and surety; bail rejected for Datta Tate and Govind Thite.

Murli Dnyanoba@Dnyaneshwar Tate and Anr. Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1)

¶2

criapln3397-3798-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3397 OF 2012

¶5

1.Murli s/o Dnyanoba @ Dnyaneshwar Tate,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Warud (N), Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani.

¶6

2.Datta s/o Dnyaneshwar Tate,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Warud (N), Tq. Jintur,
District ParbhaniAPPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jintur,
District ParbhaniRESPONDENT

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3798 OF 2012

¶9

Govind s/o Babarao Thite,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Warud (Narsinha), Tq.
Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.APPLICANT

¶10

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Jintur,
District ParbhaniRESPONDENT

¶11

.....
Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for the applicants
in both the applications.
Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State
in both the applications.
Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, advocate to assist the
Public Prosecutor in both the applications.

¶12

.....

¶13

criapln3397-3798-12

¶14

(2)

¶15

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶16

DATED : 25th September, 2012

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

1. Heard both sides.

¶19

2.Both the present applications have arisen

¶20

out of the same Crime bearing No. 78/2012, registered
with Jintur Police Station, District Parbhani, for

¶21

the offences punishable under section 302, 307, 324,
147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the I.P. Code and under
section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

¶22

3.The complaint in the case was filed by one
Mahadev Tate. He had alleged that on 5th May, 2012,

¶23

over the previous rivalry, at about 7.00 p.m. in the
evening, applicant Govind Babarao Thite (in Cri.
Application No. 3798/2012) alongwith two other

¶24

persons came to the house of the complainant. In the
incident, all the three assailants, including present
applicant Govind Thite assaulted deceased Devidas

¶25

with certain sharp-edged weapon. When the

¶26

complainant went to mediate in the same, six other

¶27

named persons including Murli Dnyanoba Tate
(applicant No. 1 in Cri. Application No. 3397/2012)

¶28

(3)

¶29

criapln3397-3798-12

¶30

and Datta Dnyaneshwar Tate (applicant No. 2 in Cri.
Application No. 3397/2012) came there with iron rods.
They also started beating the complainant. When the
mob ultimately found that Devidas may have died, all
of them ran away.

¶31

4.Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that all the applicants are in custody since May,
2012. The investigation is complete and now, in
fact, the chargesheet is also filed. It was further
submitted that so far as Criminal Application No.
3397/2012 is concerned, the general allegations are

¶32

there that six named persons had assaulted the
complainant with iron rod due to which he was
injured. The other persons named in the similar
category i.e. Govind Tate, Onkar Tate and Ranjit
Wagh are already released on bail either by this
Court or by the Sessions Court. Hence, learned
counsel submits that the applicants in this
application i.e. Cri. Application No. 3397/2012 be
released on bail.

¶33

5.As regards Criminal Application No.

¶34

3798/2012, learned counsel for the applicant submits

¶35

(4)

¶36

criapln3397-3798-12

¶37

that the statements of the writer and constable of
one API Borde would show that on the date and at the
time of the incident, applicant Govind Thite was, in
fact, proceeding towards Jintur by a jeep. The
statement of Dr. Omprakash Sanap of Jintur would show
that on 5th May, 2012, the applicant – Govind Thite
had come to his hospital at about 6.00 to 7 p.m. with
one lady patient. Further, the statement of one
Minakshi Jadhav would also show that she found the
applicant at Jintur on the relevant date and time.

¶38

6.Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel
appearing to assist the learned A.P.P. submit that
the deceased has met with death due to four incised
wounds as is clear from post-mortem notes and the
injury certificates corroborate the case against the
applicants in Criminal Application No. 3397/2012.
Considering the fact that one person has been done to
death in the evening on the road, this is not a fit
case for releasing the applicants on bail.

¶39

7.As regards the plea of alibi, it is
submitted that if the distance from the place of

¶40

(5)

¶41

criapln3397-3798-12

¶42

incident and the alleged meeting of the applicant (in
Cri. Application No. 3798/2012) with some other
persons, is considered and if certain latitude
towards the exact timing is taken into consideration,
then the plea of alibi at this stage need not be
considered.

¶43

8.So far as application of Murli s/o Dnyanoba
Tate (Cri. Application No. 3397/2012) is concerned,
his case stands on similar footing as that of the
accused who are already released on bail, as detailed
above. The allegations against him are that he was
one of the assailants who had assaulted complainant
with iron rod, in which he was injured. In the
circumstances, the applicant can be released on bail.

¶44

9.So far as application of applicant Datta
Dnyaneshwar Tate is concerned, though the complaint
merely described him as one of the assailants, the
statements of other witnesses, at this stage, would

¶45

prima facie show that he was also one of the
assailants so far as the deceased is concerned and
certain role is attributed to him by some persons who

¶46

(6)

¶47

criapln3397-3798-12

¶48

had witnessed the incident. In the circumstances,
finding that this is a case wherein the accused are
tried for the offence punishable under section 302
read with section 149 of the I.P. Code, at this
stage, there is no need to appreciate the evidence of
the complainant qua the other witnesses. Therefore,

¶49

the case of applicant No. 2 Datta (in Cri.
Application No. 3397/2012) does not stand on the same
footing as that of applicant No. 1 Murli in the said
application, or other accused who are already
released on bail.

¶50

10.So far as the case of applicant Govind Thite
(in Cri. Application No. 3798/2012) is concerned,
considering the arguments of both sides and finding
that the name of this applicant is clearly mentioned
in the FIR, at this stage, the plea of alibi cannot
be considered.

¶51

11.Considering the nature of the offences
alleged against these two applicants i.e. applicant
No. 2 Datta in Cri. Application No. 3397/2012 and

¶52

applicant Govind Thite in Cri. Application No.

¶53

(7)

¶54

criapln3397-3798-12

¶55

3798/2012, their applications are required to be
rejected. Hence, the following order.

¶56

12.The Criminal Application No. 3397/2012, to
the extent of applicant No. 1 Murli s/o Dnyanoba @
Dnyaneshwar Tate is hereby allowed. Said applicant
No. 1 Murli s/o Dnyanoba @ Dnyaneshwar Tate be
released on bail on his executing a PR bond in the
sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) and also
upon furnishing a surety in the like amount.

¶57

The prayer for releasing applicant No. 2
Datta Dnyaneshwar Tate (in Cri. Application No.
3397/2012) and that of applicant Govind Babarao Thite
(in Cri. Application No. 3798/2012) on bail, is
hereby rejected. These two applications to the extent
of applicant Datta Tate and applicant Govind Thite
stand dismissed accordingly.

¶58

[ M.T. JOSHI ]
 JUDGE

¶59

npj/criapln3397-3798-12

Murli Dnyanoba@Dnyaneshwar Tate and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Dnyanoba@Dnyaneshwar Tate and Anr. 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

Hafij Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rameshwar Madhukar Dhere Vs the State of Mah

Khandusing Yuvraj Girase Vs the State of Mah

Akshaykumar Uttamlal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Madhusudan Ragho Bhangale Vs Akshaykumar Uttamlal Jaiswal and Ors.

Adinath Devidas Pondhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah