Dismissed

Liladhar Latkan Sapkale v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC13 Mar 2012APPLN/864/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad considered a bail application. The court examined the gravity of the offence, the use of a deadly weapon, and the trial court's findings, concluding the applicant was not entitled to bail during the pendency of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Bail application is rejected. Record and proceedings are to be sent back.

Liladhar Latkan Sapkale Vs the State of Mah — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

 cra864.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.864 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2012

¶6

Liladhar Latkan Sapkale,
Age-32 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Bhalane,
Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon.

¶7

...APPLICANT.
 VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.
...RESPONDENT.

¶9

 ...
 Shri.Santosh S. Jadhavar Advocate for the
 Applicant (appointed).
 Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondent.
 ...

¶10

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
 DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2012.

¶11

 cra864.12

¶12

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2.The Applicant was convicted for an

¶16

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for life, in Sessions Case No.184 of 2010, by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by Judgment
and Order dated 8th December, 2011.

¶17

3.The Applicant prays for bail during
pendency and final hearing of the Appeal. The
prosecution case is that Applicant assaulted
deceased Suresh, with a sickle on the stomach.
Liver of the deceased got damaged and he succumbed
to the injuries. Exhibit 32 is a post-mortem
report. The cause of death as opined by the
medical officer is "cardio-respiratory arrest due
to shock due to stab wound on abdomen & epigastric
region with liver laceration, left lobe with

¶18

 cra864.12
3

¶19

Haemoperitoream." The dying declaration of the
deceased is at Exhibit 15.

¶20

4.Shri. Jadhavar, learned counsel appointed

¶21

for the Applicant, submits that prosecution case
is that deceased suffered one blow given by the
Applicant. There was no eye witness to the
incident. There was no motive for the Applicant to
commit crime. The opinion of the medical expert,
the C.A. report, do not support the prosecution
case.

¶22

5.Shri. Kaldate, learned A.P.P. opposed the
bail Application.

¶23

6.We have perused the original Record and
Proceedings, dying declaration, post-mortem
report, statement of the witnesses who reached the

¶24

spot no sooner the incident of assault was got
over. The Applicant assaulted with the dangerous
weapon on the vital parts of the body of the

¶25

 cra864.12
4

¶26

deceased. Considering the material on record and

¶27

the findings reached by the trial Court, we are
not convinced to release the Applicant on bail.
The Application stands rejected.

¶28

7. The Record and Proceedings be sent back.

¶29

8. The Counsel was appointed for the

¶30

Applicant. The Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to pay
professional fees to the counsel appointed, as per
rules.

¶31

[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/MAR12

Liladhar Latkan Sapkale v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar Latkan Sapkale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faruq Anwar Shah and Ors. Vs the Stae of Maharshtra and Ors.

Yosef Bhanudas Athawale Vs the State of Mah

Jagannath Shidya Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Sajeda Begum Md. Fasiyoddin Alias Parvez Siddiqui Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Haribhau Satwaji Jogdand and Others. Vs State of Maharashtra.

The State of Mah. Vs Madhav and Ors.