Allowed

Mahadeo Baburao Garje v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2013APPLN/3012/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to two applicants accused of committing manslaughter/murder by conspired robbery. The court found the prosecution's motive theory unproven and deemed keeping applicants in custody undesirable pending trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail on furnishing sureties of Rs.15,000/- each, conditioned not to tamper with witnesses or leave the district without permission.

Mahadeo Baburao Garje Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

924 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3012 OF 2013

¶3

MAHADEO BABURAO GARJE VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶5

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Chate Vitthal M. APP for Respondents: Mr.D.R.Kale

¶6

With

¶7

APPLN/3224/2013

¶8

JALINDAR S/O VITTHAL GOLHAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.R.G.Joshi APP for Respondents: Mr.D.R.Kale

¶10

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. Dated: July 26, 2013

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Both these applications are filed for bail. Both sides are heard. This Court has gone through papers of investigation.

¶13

Deceased Pandit was colleague of the applicants. Deceased left home for doing duty as truck driver on 28.12.2012 and his dead body was found with the truck on 31.12.2012. One Ankush, colleague of the deceased had helped the deceased in loading the goods into the truck. First Ankush left the premises of the company with Truck and then deceased left at about 10.00 a.m. on 28.12.2012.

¶14

-2-

¶15

aaa/-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶17

There are allegations against Ankush that he was in touch with the deceased on mobile handset. There are allegations against the applicants that they were in touch with said Ankush. CD record shows that they were in touch with each other. There are allegations that applicant and other accused conspired to rob the deceased as deceased was not having service of cleaner on that night.

¶18

Material collected by the police includes CDR record in respect of mobile of two accused persons. Statements of present applicants were recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of statements their cloths like Shirts were recovered on 9.1.2013 i.e. after 9-10 days of the incident. CA report is there to show that blood of ‘O’ group was detected on the clothes of the deceased and blood of ‘O’ group was found on seized clothes of applicants. Learned APP submitted that aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to infer that the applicants and other two accused persons committed the murder of deceased Pandit. It can be said that there are aforesaid piece of circumstantial evidence but as theft was not committed, the prosecution has nothing to show that there was motive for the crime. Colleagues remain in touch with each other these days and that circumstance will be kept in mind by the Court at the time of appreciation of the evidence. In view of this circumstance, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicants behind bars till the conclusion of the case filed against them. In the result, applications are allowed. Applicants in both the applications are to be released on bail in Crime No.161/2012 registered with Ashti Police Station, Tq. Ashti, Dist

¶19

aaa/-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶21

-3-

¶22

Beed for the offence p/u/s 302 r.w 34 of Indian Penal Code, on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/- by each of them. They are not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. They should not leave Beed District without permission of Sessions Court, Beed.

¶23

aaa/-

Mahadeo Baburao Garje v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Baburao Garje 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

Girish Uttamchand Nagsi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ramlal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandrakant Deoram Kamble Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bebabai Bhagwat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Masood Khan Rauf Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ravindra Amber Naik and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra