Dismissed

Murlidhar Nagorao More v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012APPLN/419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad rejected two fresh bail applications filed by accused persons in a murder-trigger case. The court held that the applications, though styled as based on subsequent developments adding an axe to the aid used, did not fundamentally alter the witness version and were effectively on the same grounds as the earlier rejected application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaints were rejected; the applications for bail were dismissed; and the applicants were directed to approach the trial court for expeditious hearing.

Murlidhar Nagorao More Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.419 OF 2012

¶4

Murlidhar S/o.Nagorao More, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Rahati, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Tadkalas Police Station.

¶7

RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f. Mr.V.S.Kadam, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr.R.P.Phatke, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶9

Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned counsel for original first informant.

¶10

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2012

¶11

Ravi S/o.Maroti Khule,

¶12

Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Rahati, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani APPLICANT

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra, Through Tadkalas Police Station Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani. RESPONDENT

¶15

Mr.M.P.Kale, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr.R.P.Phatke, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶16

Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned counsel for original first informant.

¶17

(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶18

DATE : 24/02/2012

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

Crime No.55/2011 has been registered against the applicants with

¶21

¶22

Tadkaldas Police Station u/s.302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 427 of IPC, u/s. 135 of Bombay Police Act and u/s.25(1) of Indian Arms Act.

¶23

The case proceeds in following background :-

¶24

(a) Application for bail was filed in the Sessions Court before filing of charge sheet.

¶25

(b) During pendancy of said application, charge sheet was filed.

¶26

(c) The bail application was filed when entire material in the form of charge sheet was available before the Sessions Court.

¶27

(d) The application was rejected on merits.

¶28

Earlier, the applicants have filed common application for bail in this Court. Applicants no.1 to 7, amongst whom present applicants are accused no.7 and 5 respectively, have withdrawn said application (Cri.Appl.No. 4707/2011.

¶29

Fresh application for bail was filed in the Sessions Court, based on plea that there is a change in circumstances. The change in circumstances, which are relied upon, can be described as follows :-

¶30

Supplementary statements were recorded and witnesses revealed certain material, which according to applicants favours them.

¶31

Learned Sessions Judge has heard application on merits and found that :-

¶32

(a) Earlier application for bail was considered after filing of charge sheet i.e. on merits, and the same grounds are not open for consideration in the fresh application.

¶33

(b) Though it is seen that supplementary statements have been recorded, those do not have effect of undoing the version of the witnesses initially recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rejected the application.

¶35

¶36

Heard both sides. Perused the documents accompanying the charge sheet, statements of witnesses and copies of supplementary statements.

¶37

It is seen that in the supplementary statement, one weapon is added as used by accused persons i.e. an axe. Any other version nullifying earlier version is coming forward.

¶38

In this situation, this application, for all purposes, is the application on same grounds though styled as based subsequent developments.

¶39

In the result, application is rejected.

¶40

The applicants are free to apply before the Trial Court for expeditious hearing.

¶41

Considering the number of older cases, in which accused may be in jail and the year of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge may expedite the trial if accused apply.

¶42

khs/FEB.2012/419-12

Murlidhar Nagorao More v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Nagorao More 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

Govindprasad Shrigopalji Mundada Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Govindprasad Shrigopalji Mundada Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Govindprasad Shrigopalji Mundada Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ranjitsing Sadashiv Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Bhanudas Kardile Vs the State of Mah

Arun Bhaskar Apar Vs the State of Mah