Dismissed

Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui S/O Mohammed Akhil Ahmed Siddiqui v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jul 2013APPLN/2896/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No.2896 of 2013, this Court considered the bail application of an applicant convicted for life imprisonment for murder. The Court held it was not inclined to release the applicant on bail, rejecting the application while expediting the hearing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; appeal hearing expedited.

Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui S/O Mohammed Akhil Ahmed… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra2896.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2896 OF 2013 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.235 OF 2013

¶7

Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui
s/o Mohammed Akhil Ahmed Siddiqui,
Age-65 years, Occu:Pensioner,
R/o- C/o- Government Indian Medicine
Pharmacy Ltd., Kettedon,
Hyderabad (A.P.)

¶8

...APPLICANT

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

 ...
 Smt. A.N. Ansari Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondent -
 State.

¶13

 Shri.G.K. Thigle (Naik) Advocate assist to P.P.

¶14

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND

¶15

 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ

¶16

 DATE : 9TH JULY, 2013

¶17

cra2896.13

PER COURT :

1. Heard.

2.The Applicant was convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

¶22

Rs.10,000/-, for committing murder of his wife, in
Sessions Case No.33 of 2005.

¶23

3.The prosecution case is that the

¶24

Applicant married with deceased in the year 1975.
The deceased was in service since the year 1978.

¶25

The Applicant got job at Hyderabad in the year
1988. He was residing at Hyderabad along with his
second wife. From the first marriage, the

¶26

Applicant had one son from the deceased and there
were two children born out of the second marriage.

¶27

The incident took place on 7th December, 2004.

¶28

Dead body of the deceased was found in the

¶29

cra2896.13

¶30

¶31

official quarter at village Therla, Tq-Patoda,
Dist-Beed.

¶32

4.Smt. Ansari, learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the Applicant placed reliance on the
attendance register maintained by the office where
the Applicant was working as compounder. It was
submitted that the Applicant was on duty at
Hyderabad on the day of incident. The counsel

¶34

submitted that there was no motive for crime. The
relations between the Applicant and deceased were
cordial inspite of the fact that Applicant married

¶35

second time and was residing at Hyderabad along
with his family. The Applicant was on bail during
the trial.

¶36

5.The learned A.P.P. submits that there are

¶37

strong circumstances indicating involvement of the
Applicant in the crime. Persons in the village

¶38

Therla had seen the Applicant on the day of
incident. There are recoveries made at the

¶39

cra2896.13

¶40

¶41

instance of the Applicant which are of

¶42

incriminating nature. The trial Court has rejected
the service record of the Applicant which was not
trustworthy.

¶43

6.We have perused the record, considered

¶44

the reasoning adopted by the trial Court and
considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties. The case is
based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution
has brought on record certain circumstances
indicating involvement of the Applicant in
commission of crime. The application for leave
submitted by the Applicant to his employer is
dated 6th December 2004. The Applicant had prayed

¶45

for grant of leave from 7th December 2004 to 10th
December 2004. The date "7" was changed to "8" by
the Applicant, for which he has given explanation
in his written statement. By an order dated 10th

¶46

October 2011, the learned Sessions Judge, Beed has
allowed the application for alteration of the

¶47

cra2896.13

¶48

¶49

timing mentioned in the charge. It was altered as
"10.00 A.M. of 7/12/2004 to 12.00 Noon of
8/12/2004."

¶50

7.Considering the circumstances brought on

¶51

record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced
the Applicant for the offence committed by the
Applicant. We are not inclined to release the
Applicant on bail. The Application stands
rejected. However, hearing of the Appeal is
expedited.

¶52

[A.I.S. CHEEMA,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶53

asb/JUL13

Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui S/O Mohammed Akhil Ahmed Siddiqui v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui S/O Mohammed Akhil Ahmed Siddiqui 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

Manish Kalani Premswarup Kalani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Damodhar More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Chourasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Dada Hivrale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Govind Gorya Patil, C.No. 4199, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Gafoor Ahmed Siddiqi S/O Mohammed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another