Allowed

Mangesh Shrinibvash Salkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Nov 2012BA/1623/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Sessions Case No.128 concerning murder before Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Bombay High Court allowed bail application challenging distinction between this applicant and co-accused where others were released.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount or two sureties in sum of Rs.15,000/- each to report to Borivali Police Station every Monday.

Mangesh Shrinibvash Salkar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

rpa

¶2

1/4 ba1623-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1623 OF 2012

¶5

Mangesh Shrinivash Salkar ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. A. M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶8

DATED : November 23, 2012.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶11

2 The Applicant is one of the three accused in Sessions Case No.128 of 2012, pending before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. The allegation against the Applicant and the other accused is that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶12

3 The prosecution case is that the Applicant had illicit relations with the sister of the deceased-Babu Salkar. This relationship was

¶13

2/4 ba1623-12

¶14

disliked by the deceased Balu Salkar. The Applicant therefore decided to murder the said Balu Salkar, and for that purpose he took help of one Maruti and one Santosh (co-accused). The prosecution case is that on 5^th February, 2012, the Applicant and the co-accused Maruti went to the residence of the deceased and took him out for some work. The deceased did not return home and, therefore, his wife made inquires with several persons including the present Applicant, about the whereabouts of the deceased. On 8^th February, 2012, the wife of the deceased lodged a missing report with the MHB Police Station. On 12^th February, 2012, a dead body was found lying near the railway tracks and the said body was reveled to be of the deceased Balu Salkar. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Sub-Inspector of police attached to Dahisar police station who had learnt about the dead body lying near the railway tracks.

¶15

4 In the course of investigation, the statement of wife of the deceased was recorded and she informed the police that on 5^th February, 2012, the deceased had gone along with the Applicant and the said co-accused Maruti.

¶16

5 The case of the prosecution is that while the deceased, the Applicant, the said Maruti and the said Santosh were walking by the side of the railway tracks, the Applicant (on noticing that a train was coming), gave a push to the deceased who fell on the tracks, got injured because the dash of the train, and died. That thereafter, the Applicant and the other accused removed his dead body from that place and threw it somewhere else.

¶17

3/4 ba1623-12

¶18

6 Mr. Saraogi pointed out that though the nature of the evidence against all the accused is same and, though, the other accused have been released on bail, the Applicant has not been released. According to him, there is no distinction between the case of the Applicant and that of the other accused.

¶19

7 I have considered the matter. The only basis on which the allegation against the Applicant and the other has been levelled is that they were last seen together with the deceased. This statement is based on the information given by the wife of the deceased to the police which was recorded on 15^th February, 2012. What were the contents of the earlier missing report have not been reveled by the investigating agency. However, the statement of the wife of the deceased, itself makes it clear that the version that the deceased has left with the Applicant and the co-accused Maruti was not mentioned in the missing report and has been introduced subsequently.

¶20

8 According to the investigating agency, when the Applicant and the other accused were arrested i.e. on 14^th February, 2012, the clothes which they were wearing, were seized and that those clothes contained stains of blood. The case of the Investigating Agency is that those were the very clothes which the Applicant and the other accused had been wearing on 5^th February, 2012, when they had allegedly pushed the deceased in front of the railway train.

¶21

9 The statement of the motorman has not been recorded.

¶22

10 After carefully considering the matter and keeping in mind

¶23

4/4 ba1623-12

¶24

the likelihood of a person intending to kill another resorting to the method of taking such person near railway tracks and pushing him in front of a railway train for the purpose of committing his murder, as also the fact that the deceased had left with the Applicant and the co-accused Maruti has been introduced subsequently, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail.

¶25

11 Even otherwise, the nature of material against the Applicant and the other accused is in no way different and as aforesaid, the other accused have already been released on bail by the Sessions Court.

¶26

12 This is a case which is, apparently, based on the statements allegedly made by the Applicant and the other accused before the police in the course of investigation. On the basis of such material, bail cannot be denied when investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed.

¶27

13 The Application is allowed.

¶28

The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each, on the condition that he shall report to the Borivali Police Station on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him.

¶29

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J. )

Mangesh Shrinibvash Salkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Shrinibvash Salkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandkishor Vishwanath Vidhate Vs Laxmibai Ramchandra Karanjawane and Ors.

Kailash Devchand Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samruddhi Value Marketing Ltd. Vs Deshmukh Samruddhi Services and Anr.

Akbar Raunak Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nazar Mohammad Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narendra R. Patel and Ors. (Interveners) and the Applicants Vs the State of Maharashtra