Allowed

Sardar Jaspal Singh @ Jaggu Kripal Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012BA/155/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437 CrPC, the High Court of Bombay allowed bail where the prosecution case was found to be very thin, noting no direct evidence linked the applicant to the crime scene or his vehicle being used for the murder conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Release granted on bail of Rs.25,000/- with surety and conditions regarding residency and property particulars.

Sardar Jaspal Singh @ Jaggu Kripal Singh Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

avk

BA-155-2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2012

¶7

SARDAR JASPAL SINGH @ JAGGU KRIPAL SINGH)...APPLICANT

¶8

V/s.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶10

)...RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr.Amin H. Solkar Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.J.P.Kharge APP for the State.

¶12

CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.I-30 of 2011 by Bhiwandi Police Station. The offence alleged against the applicant is of conspiracy to commit murder of one Rajendra. It prima facie appears, that the deceased Rajendra had enmity with the applicant, because of conflict of interest in business. Both, Rajendra and the applicant, are residents of Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is alleged that the applicant conspired with the other accused, to commit murder of Rajendra. Rajendra was last seen on 1.3.2011, in the company of other accused. The witnesses heard him saying that he was going towards Shirdi for darshan etc. But on 2.3.2011, Rajendra’s dead body was found, within the local limits of the Police Station. One of the witnesses said that he had seen the car belonging to the applicant in Bhiwandi area, at the relevant time. He also mentioned that this car

¶15

avk 2 BA-155-2012

¶16

was brought by three persons in New Panvel area, who are not identified by the witnesses. It is not the prosecution case, that the occupants of the applicant’s car had met Rajendra before his death. It is neither the case of the prosecution, that the car belonging to the applicant and the occupants of the same, were seen following the car, in which Rajendra was travelling at the relevant time. Neither, it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was seen in Bhiwandi or New Panvel area, at the relevant time. The case as against the applicant is very thin and so he deserves bail.

¶17

2 The applicant is released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The surety shall be a resident of Nizamabad. The applicant shall also produce particulars of his immovable property situated at Nizamabad at the time of his bail.

¶18

(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)

Sardar Jaspal Singh @ Jaggu Kripal Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Jaspal Singh @ Jaggu Kripal Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Arjun Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prasad Mansing Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Baban Suryavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramchandra Kamble Vs Shrushti Vijay Kamble and Anr.

Saiesh Girjashankear Tripathi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra