Allowed

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri S/O Sadashiv Rautkar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O

Bombay HC29 Jul 2013APPA/463/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by a convicted appellant sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, the High Court examined the trial court's reliance on the prosecution witness statement and physical evidence. Discerning no incriminating circumstances, the court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the appellant on bond.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety.

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri S/O Sadashiv Rautkar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

appa463-13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 463 of 2013

¶4

¶5

Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2013

¶6

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri s/o Sadashiv Rautkar

¶7

Vrs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra..

¶9

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

and Registrar's order

¶11

Mr. A.C. Jaltare, counsel for applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for Respondent-State

¶12

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND

¶13

P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 29th July, 2013

¶14

This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant has been convicted along with the other accused for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas the accused no. 1 has been sentenced to death, the present appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶15

The prosecution case is that the deceased was having love affair with the accused no.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.1 and accused

¶16

¶17

appa463-13.odt

¶18

no.2 hatched a conspiracy to do away with the deceased and committed her murder and also burnt her dead body after causing death.

¶19

Heard Shri Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Doifode, learned APP for the State.

¶20

Shri Doifode, learned APP vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on a statement made by PW-4 in his statement under section 162 of Cr.P.C. The learned APP in this respect has relied on the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 985. The learned APP further submitted that since the confirmation case in respect of the co-accused no.1 is likely to be heard in the recent future, the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail. In this respect, the learned APP placed reliance in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) reported in 2008(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 541.

¶21

The perusal of the material on record would reveal that the circumstances which are relied upon by the learned trial Judge against the present appellant are

¶22

appa463-13.odt

¶23

¶24

– (i) the statement made by PW-4 in a statement recorded under Section 162, (ii) blood stains found on the clothes of the present accused.

¶25

In so far as the first circumstance is concerned, no doubt, that the learned APP relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass cited supra. From the catena of judgments of the Apex Court including the one in the case of Tahsildar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 it can be clearly seen that it has been a consistent view that the statement under section 162 can only be used for the purposes of contradiction in view of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶26

No doubt, at it has also been consistently held that a part of the evidence of a hostile witness which inspires confidence of the court can be relied on. However, perusal of the evidence of PW-4 would reveal that there is nothing in his examination in chief, which can be said to be an evidence so as to establish the incriminating act of the present appellant.

¶27

In so far as the circumstance regarding the presence of blood stains on the clothes is concerned,

¶28

appa463-13.odt

¶29

¶30

the C.A. report negates the said contention.

¶31

In so far as the judgment in the case of Sidhartha Vashisth @ Manu Sharma cited supra relied on by the learned APP is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule or a straight jacket formula for considering the application for bail. The contention of the learned APP that in a case of conviction even when there is no evidence, an application for suspension of sentence cannot be granted, if accepted, it would amount to nothing else but travesty of justice.

¶32

In the present case, at the cost of repetition we may say that prima facie there are no incriminating circumstances so as to establish the complicity of the present applicant with the crime alleged.

¶33

In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

Hirekhan

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri S/O Sadashiv Rautkar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri S/O Sadashiv Rautkar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Krushnarao Sawarkar and Another Vs Rajkumar Shrivallabh Mundhada and Others

Diwaldas Sawaldas Nandanwar Vs Kanhaiyalal Hariram Kabra

Arun Surajdin Jaiswal and Others Vs Additional Commissioner

Suraj Arvind Thakare Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Sonegaon

Kaduba Yadav Dhandar (Prisoner, C-2028) Vs D.I.G. Prisons (East), Nagpur and Another

Anuradha Sugar Mills Ltd. Thr. Its Office Supdt. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola and Anr.