Allowed

Mohd. Rizwan S/O Mohd. Irfan v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ps Jaripatka

Bombay HC20 Mar 2012BA/79/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail applications filed under Section 437 CrPC, the High Court at Nagpur granted temporary bail to applicants charged with murder and abetment. The court noted the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and delayed witness statements, directing the prosecution to explain delays at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties.

Mohd. Rizwan S/O Mohd. Irfan Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Criminal Application (BA) No. 79 of 2012 Mohd Rizwan v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Application No. 156 of 2012 Sarfaraj v. State of Maharashtra

¶4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶5

Mr Anil Mardikar, Advocate with

¶6

Mr Gulhane, Advocate for applicants

¶7

Mr S. S. Doifode, APP for State

¶8

Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J

¶9

Dated: 20^th March 2012

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State in both the applications. Applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 145/2011 registered with Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that although accusations are serious, FIR was lodged mainly against accused Sumit Thakur, Junnaid and Dinesh. Mr Mardikar submits that none of these applicants applying for bail was named in the

¶12

¶13

FIR. According to investigating agency, the material collected during investigation as against the present applicants is in the form of alleged extra-judicial confession made to one of the prosecution witnesses whose statement was recorded after about 15 days of the alleged incident. The investigating agency also relied upon some of the statements of witnesses who claimed that they had last seen deceased in the company of some of the accused. Their statements were also recorded after much delay on 26.5.2011. Statement of one Mohammad Iqbal Khan was further delayed as it was recorded on 16.6.2011. It is informed that co-accused Mohasin, Abdul Nijim and Junnaid have already been released on bail.

¶14

Considering delay in recording statements of material witnesses, delay will have to be explained by the prosecution at the time of trial. There is no statement of any eye witness recorded by the prosecution. In the absence of direct clinching evidence and the prosecution case being based on circumstantial evidence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants on certain conditions. Hence, the following order.

¶15

Applicants be released on bail in Crime No. 145/2011 registered with Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code upon their furnishing PR Bond

¶16

¶17

in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicants shall not try to tamper with prosecution evidence. They will attend the trial on all dates. They are directed to leave their permanent address along with telephone/cellphone number, if any, with the Investigating Officer as also the Court concerned and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Judge

¶19

joshi

Mohd. Rizwan S/O Mohd. Irfan v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ps Jaripatka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rizwan S/O Mohd. Irfan v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ps Jaripatka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Diwakarrao Mule (in Jail) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Wardha (City)

Sandhya W/O Ashok Rahagude Vs State of Maharashtra, Crime No. 131/2011

Mrs. Sumitra W/O Dnyneshwar Thakare Vs State of Maharashtra, Crime No. 131/2011, P.S.O. P.S. Immamwada

Jyotising @ Jyoti Shivnand Rathod Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Asegaon

Aakash @ Sonu S/O Prithiviraj Tagade Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Staion Sitabuldi

Sarfaraj Khan @ Baba S/O Sharafat Khan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Police Station, Jaripatka