Allowed

Madurai Veeran M. Devendra v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013ABA/182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application regarding a murder charge arising from an assault during a civil dispute over a flat, the High Court allowed bail due to the absence of eye witnesses and lack of positive evidence linking the applicant to the crime despite his criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and solvent surety of Rs. 50,000/-.

Madurai Veeran M. Devendra Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

1 aba182.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2013

¶5

Madurai Veeran M. Devendra .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. M. S. Mohite i/b Chaitanya Pendse for the applicant. Mr. S. A. Shaikh APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI,J.

¶8

DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

This is an application for anticipatory bail. The crime No.414 of 2012 was registered with D. N. Nagar police station on 27/12/2012. Ravikumar Ramaswamy Shettiar was found lying in injured condition on the colony road and a report was made.

¶11

In the post mortem examination the injuries are found on front parietal region having fracture and internal injury and fracture to four ribs and injury to the body which are totally nine in number.

¶12

The case was heard at considerable length.

¶13

2 aba182.13

¶14

This application is opposed on the ground that :-

¶15

(a) The applicant and deceased had dispute over Flat No.3/2, situate at Ground Floor, K-Wing, Kishor Darshan Co-operative Society Ltd.

¶16

(b) The said flat was purchased by the applicant in auction from a Nationalised bank while the deceased claim to be occupant thereof and some civil dispute was also pending between the applicant and deceased.

¶17

(c) The applicant has criminal antecedents and he has also externed, however, externment case is of 1995, and a recent chapter cases was proceeded against him in 2006.

¶18

The investigating officer who was present in court was asked reasons and circumstances based on efforts made during the investigation as to how on the basis of statement of witnesses who had occasion to be nearby at time of incident when the deceased may have been assaulted. No specific answer is coming forward.

¶19

The investigation has proceeded in the background and there are no eye witnesses so far noticed. There is no witness connecting the applicant in any manner whatsoever and no reasons whatsoever have come forward to deflect the needle of suspicion to point towards the applicant. Going by any parameters, a person who is in civil court and who has injunction in his favour would not in all probabilities

¶20

3 aba182.13

¶21

involve himself in an incident of assault which would lead to attracting liability as an assailant in taking away somebody’s life.

¶22

At this stage nothing more than suspicion is shown against the applicant.

¶23

Criminal antecedents relied by the investigating officer do not throw light whatsoever involvement of the applicant, however, once there is suspicion of involvement there has to be positive evidence against accused.

¶24

Cause of death is head injury and injury was not natural. The Investigating Officer has no clue which to point the needle of suspicion on the applicant. Nothing against the applicant is produced on record and ground of suspicion is disputed as indicated hereinabove. It would be extremely risky proposition to deny the applicant liberty which is sought for.

¶25

In the result application is allowed in following terms :-

¶26

(a) the applicant be released on bail in the event of his arrest in furtherance of Crime No. 414 of 2012 registered with D. N. Nagar police station on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶27

(b) The applicant shall attend the concerned

¶28

4 aba182.13

¶29

police station from 17th April to 22nd April, 2013 between 4 pm and 6 pm and thereafter as and when called.

¶30

(c) The applicant shall furnish within 48 hours the postal address, cell phone number, landline number and name of contact person for sending message and/or information in the event the Investigating Officer requires personal attendance of the applicant in the matter.

¶31

(A. H. JOSHI, J.)

Madurai Veeran M. Devendra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madurai Veeran M. Devendra 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

Shri Vidyachandra R. Mehta Vs Shri Krishnaji B. Shelgikar and Others

Prabhakar Krishna Nikam Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Dharmaraj Ramvilas Yadav Vs Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar and Ors.

Intercon Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Salim Y. Balim Alias Lashkaria and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chintamani Lalmani Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra