Allowed

Dilip Namdeo Bharne v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Mar 2013APPA/181/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 181 of 2013, the Bombay High Court allowed the suspension of the applicant's substantive life sentence and granted bail pending the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2013, noting the case requires no pose no md.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of equal amount.

Dilip Namdeo Bharne Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

APPA181.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 181 OF 2013

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2013

DILIP NAMDEO BHARNE

.. APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/b Prashant M. Patil, Advocate for the applicant Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the State

¶14

CORAM:-P. V. HARDAS & ABHAY M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 01/03/2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the

¶17

substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on

¶18

bail, pending the decision of the appeal.

1/5

APPA181.13

The applicant along with the other accused stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

¶23

Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 6 months, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 16/1/2013 in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2008.

¶24

It appears that the only evidence against the present applicant comprises of the evidence relating to the applicant being a principal of the conspiracy, which was hatched between the accused for the murder of deceased Pintya on 29.9.2007. PW 1 in his evidence has stated that accused No. 1 had fired on

¶25

the back and the head of the deceased and also the persons from the jeep pointed out pistol and had compelled PW 1 to sit down in jeep. PW 1 had further deposed that accused No. 1 had asked one of the persons to make a telephone call to one Dilip Bharne, stating him that his work has been done and he should send money. This part of the evidence has been elicited

2/5

APPA181.13

as omissions at paragraph 15 of his deposition. Apart from this evidence and the seizure of a cellphone from the possession of the accused on which a call had been made of duration of two minutes, there is no other evidence. The trial judge has recorded a finding that admittedly there was no evidence in respect of the ownership of the sim cards. Thus there was no evidence whatsoever that the call which is alleged to have been received by the accused was, on a mobile, which belonged to the present applicant. There was nothing at all of ownership in respect of the sim cards in respect of mobile from which the call had been made to the present applicant and which was said to have been received by the present applicant. 4. Mr. Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that, since this is the only evidence against the applicant and the principal evidence i.e. the evidence of PW 1 has been elicited by way of omissions, the conviction of the applicant cannot be said to be based on any tangible material.

3/5

APPA181.13

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,

¶34

we have perused the findings record by the trial judge. We have also perused the copies of the depositions of the witnesses which have been made available for our perusal.

¶35

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, according to us, this is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment, in enlarging the applicant on bail, pending the decision of the appeal.

¶36

We are informed that, the applicant was on bail during trial and there are no allegations that he has misused the discretion exercised in his favour by releasing him on bail. Accordingly this application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended and the applicant is released on bail applicant after furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶37

The applicant shall attend the Khadki Police Station,

4/5

APPA181.13

District Pune, once in three months on first Saturday between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.

¶42

The applications is allowed accordingly.

¶43

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶44

order.

¶45

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶46

(P.V. HARDAS,J.)

¶47

md.saleem

¶48

5/5

Dilip Namdeo Bharne v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Namdeo Bharne 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

Raju Dadu Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Noor Mohammed Sayed Mohd Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Siddharam Vijay Harake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna Satish Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Anupam Jaiprakash Mishra @ Tinkal