Allowed

Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC7 Feb 2013APPLN/433/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed a bail application filed by three individuals charged under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. The court held that no worthy reason existed to deny bail as the charge-sheet did not clearly disclose involvement in an offence punishable with life imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the applicants to be released on bail on furnishing a R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties and adherence to standard bail conditions.

Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Appln.433.13

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 433 OF 2013

¶5

1.Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav
Age : 26 years, Occ : Agri.,
2.Santosh Mahadu Jadhav
Age : 33 years, Occ : Agri.,
3.Baliram S/o Mahadu Jadhav
Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri.,
All R/o Kelsula, Tq. Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli.
...APPLICANTS
Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli.

¶7

...RESPONDENT

¶8

.....
Mr. P.K. Chaware h/f Mr. S.S. Londhe, advocate for
Applicants.
Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.
 DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2013

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

1.Prayer for bail is made by the applicants

¶13

charge-sheeted along with four more accused persons

¶14

for commission of offence punishable under Sections

¶15

Cri.Appln.433.13 -2-

¶16

307 and 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code by Sengaon Police Station, Tq. Sengaon, Dist.
Hingoli. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the
learned A.P.P. on the count of involvement of the

¶17

applicants being prima facie borne from the
material collected during the investigation and
primarily in the shape of first information report
lodged by the victim Alfa i.e. the wife of the
applicant No.1 and the statement of the eye witness
Sudam Ramrao Chavan who had been to her matrimonial
house for reaching her back. It is urged that the
allegations in the F.I.R regarding administration
of poison are corroborated such smell noticed on
the cloths by doctor when the victim was taken by
her uncle Sudam Chavan to the hospital.

¶18

2.The aforesaid submissions were countered

¶19

by the learned counsel for applicants by stating
that accepting all the material in the charge sheet

¶20

even as it is, the same does not reveal the
involvement of applicants in commission of the
offence punishable exclusively with imprisonment
for life. It is further urged that the matters

¶21

Cri.Appln.433.13 -3-

¶22

stated in the First Information Report are apparen
ly out of the tune of the probability factor.

¶23

3.The said crime is registered upon the

¶24

First Information Report lodged by the victim in
which amongst others she claimed that after she was
reached the matrimonial house and her uncle Sudam

¶25

left immediately her mother-in-law said for
catching her as she has not brought the money and
thereafter the applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 is
said to have caught hold of her hands and co-
accused Archana and Jyoti her legs and thereafter
the applicant No.1 forcibly poured the poison in
her mouth from can. She further claimed that her
uncle hearing shouts returned and rescued her and
took her to the hospital. Somewhat similar
corroborative account is found in the statement of
the said uncle Sudam.

¶26

4.Thus, prima facie perusal of the material

¶27

in the charge sheet does not reveal involvement of

¶28

the applicants in commission of offences punishable

¶29

exclusivelywithimprisonmentforlife.

¶30

Cri.Appln.433.13 -4-

¶31

Investigation is complete. Other co-accused
allegedly played similar sort of role have been
already released on bail. Presently the charge

¶32

sheet does not contain any material supporting the
administration of the poison in view of report of
Chemical Analyzer not received. Having regard to

¶33

the same and even after considering the matters

¶34

from the First Information Report there is no
worthy reason for not exercising discretion in
favour of grant of bail as no circumstance
warranting otherwise is revealed from facts and
circumstances of crime.

¶35

5.The applicants-accused are directed to be

¶36

released on bail in connection with the aforesaid

¶37

offence, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of

¶38

Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) with one or more

¶39

sureties in the like amount and subject to
conditions that Applicants after their release :

¶40

(i)shall attend the Investigating Officer on the

¶41

first day of every month for a period of three
months.

¶42

Cri.Appln.433.13 -5-

¶43

(ii)shall stay at the addresses mentioned in the
application and shall not change the same without
the permission of the Court.

¶44

(iii) shall not indulge in any activity of
threatening the prosecution witnesses and/or
indulge in any activity of tampering and hampering
the progress of the trial against them.

¶45

(iv)shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶46

6. Application stands disposed of.

¶47

sga/

Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhav Hema Rathod Vs the State of Mah

Sarjerao Sakharam Awsarmal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shesherao Limbaji Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Sudhakar Daingade Vs the State of Mah

Sangita Ganesh Chavan Vs the State of Mah

Krushna Jagannath Sirsat and Anr. Vs the State of Mah