Partly allowed

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2012BA/564/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court Common Session Judge consolidated three Criminal Applications for bail filed by co-accused persons. While distinguishing the role of one co-accused who was already on bail, the Judge refused bail to two applicants but allowed it to Madhukar Meharman Pawar, granting him release on bail in Rs.50,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for two applicants; Madhukar Meharman Pawar released on bail in Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

BA-562-564-569.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.562 OF 2012

¶5

Madhukar Meharman Pawar .... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Mohol Police Station, Dist. Solapur .... Respondent

¶6

ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2012

¶7

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar .... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Mohol Police Station, Dist. Solapur .... Respondent

¶8

AND

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.569 OF 2012

¶10

Samir Khan .... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Mohol Police Station, Dist. Solapur .... Respondent

¶11

Mr. V.V. Purwant for the Applicants.

¶12

Mr. J.P. Kharge, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State in Cr. BA/562/2012 and Cr. BA/564/2012.

¶13

Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State in Cr. BA/569/2012.

¶14

CORAM: A.M. THIPSAY

¶15

DATE : 2 nd May, 2012 .

1/4

BA-562-564-569.sxw

Dixit

P.C. :

Heard.

¶21

These three Criminal Applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the Applicants in all these three Criminal Applications are the Accused in one and the same C.R..

¶22

I have gone through the F.I.R.. I have also taken on record the copy of the Charge-Sheet tendered by Mr. Purwant, the learned Advocate for the Applicants, and I have glanced through the same.

¶23

Going by the averments in the F.I.R., a prima-facie case, inter alia , of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, read with Section 149 of the IPC, is made out against all the Applicants.

¶24

It is pointed out to me that the co-accused Uttam Jalinder Pawar has already been released on bail by this Court (Criminal Application No.1851 of 2011, decided on 10^th January, 2012) (Coram : J.H. Bhatia, J.). I have gone through the said order, a copy of which has been made available to me. I do not think that the case of any of the Applicants is on par with that of the said Uttam

2/4

Dixit

BA-562-564-569.sxw

Jalinder Pawar. The name of Uttam Jalinder Pawar has been mentioned in the F.I.R., but no role at all has been given to him. The present Applicants are, however, given certain specific roles in the matter. For instance, the Applicant in Criminal Application No.562 of 2012 – Madhukar Meharman Pawar – has been given the role of placing a knife on the abdomen of the First Informant. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.569 of 2012 – Samir Khan – is alleged to have run after the victim Aruna Ramdas Pawar, after she had run inside another room. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.564 of 2012 – Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar – appears to be the main Accused.

¶29

Thus, the case of the Accused Uttam Jalinder Pawar, who has been granted bail, is different from the case of the present Applicants and, therefore, on the ground that the said Uttam Jalinder Pawar has been released on bail, none of the present Applicants can be released on bail.

¶30

Mr. Purwant, the learned Advocate for the Applicants, however, urged that the Applicant in Criminal Application No.562 of 2012 – Madhukar Meharman Pawar – has been given much lesser role in the incident. He submitted that, even that role, namely, of placing a knife over the abdomen of the First Informant, has not been supported by the other eye witnesses. It is also submitted that the knife, allegedly, used by him has not been recovered in the

3/4

Dixit

BA-562-564-569.sxw

course of investigation. He is in the custody since 26^th June, 2011. The trial has not yet commenced.

¶35

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to grant one opportunity of availing of liberty to the Applicant in Criminal Application No.562 of 2012 - Madhukar Meharman Pawar. So far as the other Applicants are concerned, I am not inclined to release them on bail.

¶36

Criminal Application Nos.564 of 2012 and 569 of 2012 are rejected.

¶37

Criminal Application No.562 of 2012 is allowed.

¶38

The Applicant in Criminal Application No.562 of 2012 – Madhukar

¶39

Meharman Pawar – is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/with one surety in like amount.

¶40

(A.M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶41

4/4

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Gundu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant @ Amruti Vishwanath Kshirasagar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopal Narayan Hande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Meharman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Isnwara Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra