Allowed

Swejit Pandit Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012BA/957/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two concurrent bail applications, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted bail to Ramesh Kadam on conditions regarding relocation and limiting movement, while declining to entertain the application filed by Swejit Pandit Shinde.

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kadam released on bond of Rs. 30,000 with conditions to shift to Sangli, attend trial, and avoid Kauthe Mahakal taluka; Swejit Pandit Shinde's application withdrawn and permitted.

Swejit Pandit Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

BA 957.12.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 957 OF 2012

¶6

Mr. Swejit Pandit Shinde. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶7

Mr.

¶8

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2012

¶9

Mr. Ramesh Nandkishor Kadam.

¶10

... Applicant.

¶11

V/s.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶13

Mr. D.V. Sutar for the Applicant in Bail Appln.No.957/2012. Mr. Umesh Mankapure with Mr. Haribhau Deshinge for the Applicant in Bail Appln. No.967/2012. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the Intervener.

¶14

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶15

DATED : 26^th JULY 2012.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

Heard both the learned Counsel extensively.

¶18

In the night of 3^rd January 2012, after lodging report to

¶19

the Police at Kauthe Mahakal, persons in groups either in Car

¶20

¶21

BA 957.12.sxw

¶22

or on a motercycle were returning. The car was initially intercepted. Amar Vitthal Shinde is owner of the car while Uddhav Shinde was plying the car. They have witnessed the brutality in assaulting the injured. Even they suffered the brunt of the attacks. The laxity and inaction on the part of the investigators and the local police has made a outrageous situation in the area and ultimately, superiors intervened and the investigator is changed. Thereafter, renewed statements are recorded on 12^th January 2012 and onwards which implicate the culprits. Primarily, there are atleast 7 – 8 eye witnesses of the events.

¶23

So far as case of Ramesh Kadam is concerned, following facts requires attention. Barring statement of Uddhav and in general, stating that Accused/Applicant Ramesh Kadam was in the group of 25 to 30 persons who were handling sword, hockey sticks and iron rods were smashing vehicle and assaulting people, there is no specific role to said Ramesh. The statements of other witnesses are based on what Uddhav conveyed them.

¶24

¶25

BA 957.12.sxw

¶26

Mr. Patil, learned Counsel submits that it may be that Ramesh Kadam, being resident of Tisangi, was only known to Mr. Uddhav Shinde and not others. If this is to be accepted, necessarily there should have been a test identification parade for this Ramesh. However, no such exercise is forthcoming. Barring statement of Uddhav Shinde, there is nothing against the Accused/Applicant Ramesh, who is 18 years old college going student at Kauthe Mahakal. He probably accompanied his friends in the Omni car. He is in custody since 11^th January 2012. He has no political background. He had no intention basically to teach a lesson to the rival group or the deceased or the other relations of the complainant or Amar Shinde.

¶27

During the course of submissions, learned Counsel for Mr. Ramesh submits if directed to be released on bail, the Applicant shall keep himself away and preferably remain at Sangli. He also submits, the Applicant has to take care of his father who is ill, being mentally challenged..

¶28

BA 957.12.sxw

¶29

¶30

Survey of above facts and minimal role pointed by Uddhav Shinde to accused Ramesh coupled with his age, no assassination of motive, no recovery, no criminal antecedent, he deserves to be released on bail.

¶31

So far as Applicant Swejit is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application.

¶32

Now, on instructions, learned Counsel withdraws the Criminal Bail Application No. 957 of 2012. Same is permitted to be withdrawn.

¶33

The Accused/Applicant Ramesh Nandkishore Kadam be released in C.R. No.1 of 2012 of Kauthe Mahakal Police Station, Sangli on executing PR bond and surety in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) on following condition :-

¶34

(a) After his release, within 15 days he shall shift himself to Sangli, shall furnish his changed address and communication details to the Investigator in the matter. He shall attend the Sessions Case at Sangli scrupulously.

¶35

BA 957.12.sxw

¶36

¶37

(b) He shall attend Vishrambag Police Station in the vicinity of Sangli on every first Sunday of English Calender month till conclusion of trial and he shall not enter the limits of Kauthe Mahakal Taluka till conclusion of trial.

¶38

(c ) The Accused/Applicant shall not influence the witnesses and nor indulge in illegal activities or terrorize the witnesses.

¶39

(d) The Accused/Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶40

Criminal Bail Application No. 967 of 2012 allowed as above.

¶41

(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

¶42

6 BA 957.12.sxw

Swejit Pandit Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swejit Pandit Shinde 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

Sharad Ananda Kiragath Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay @ Kalu Rambhay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Anandrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Jahangir Kadarsaheb Maner and Anr.

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Parvez Mohamad Maner and Anr.

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Mohamad Isak Maner Adn Anr.