The High Court rejected a criminal application for bail from three applicants convicted of murder. The Court found the evidence reliable and deemed the case not fit for bail due to loss of life and findings of guilt. The application was dismissed.
Application for bail stood rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
cra876.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.876 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2012
1) Jagannath s/o Shidya Patil,
Age-72 years, Occu:Agriculture,
2) Umesh s/o Jagannath Patil,
Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture,
3) Kisan s/o Jagannath Patil,
Age-32 years, Occu:Agriculture,
All R/o-Ganesh Budhawal,
Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar.
...APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Taloda Police Station,
Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.Rajendra Raghuvanshi Advocate h/f.
Shri. A.B. Girase Advocate for the
Applicants.
Shri. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for Respondent -
State.
...
cra876.12
2
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2012.
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.The Applicants were convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to suffer Rigorous Life Imprisonment, in Sessions
Case No.46 of 2005, by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Shahada, by Judgment and order dated 7th
February, 2012, for committing murder of deceased
Dharamdas and Shantaram.
3.The incident in question took place on
13th May, 2005, at about 10.30 a.m. Dharamdas and
Shantaram died on the spot. Charge was framed
against five accused persons by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Shahada, on 20th April 2009, in
cra876.12
3
Sessions Case No.46 of 2005. Except the present
three Applicants, rest of the accused persons were
acquitted.
4. Shri. Rajendra Raghuvanshi, learned
counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that
there are several infirmities and deficiencies in
the prosecution case. Material witnesses were
with-held by the prosecution. The panchnamas do
not support the prosecution case. The evidence of
PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 was relied upon by the trial
Court, being eye witnesses to the incident. The
learned counsel submits that the testimony of
these witnesses cannot be relied upon, as they are
interested witnesses. The prosecution case is not
believable. The Applicants were on bail during the
trial, therefore, pending hearing and final
disposal of the Appeal, the Applicants be released
on bail by imposing conditions as this Court deems
fit. The learned counsel, during the course of
argument, referred to the first information
4
cra876.12
report, evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 and other
relevant material.
5.The learned A.P.P. submits that this is a
case where two persons lost their life. There is
direct evidence on record which establishes guilt
of the accused persons. There are strong
circumstances against the Applicants. The injured
eye witnesses deposed against the Applicants.
6.Original Record and Proceeding was
called. We have perused the same. PW-1, PW-4 and
PW-5 narrated the incident of assault on the
deceased Dharamdas and Shantaram, by the accused
persons. It reveals from the record that dangerous
weapons were used in the assault. The deceased
were assaulted on the vital parts of their body
due to which they died on the spot. We have
perused inquest panchnama, spot panchnama and
medical evidence in this regard.
cra876.12
5
7.In view of the findings of guilt reached
by the trial Court and the fact that two persons
lost their life, we do not find that this is a fit
case to release the Applicants on bail. The
Application stands rejected.
[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/MAR12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants, convicted of murder and in jail pending appeal, are entitled to bail.
Whether the case is a fit case to release the applicants on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagannath s/o Shidya Patil
Umesh s/o Jagannath Patil
Kisan s/o Jagannath Patil
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court