Single judge order on bail application in murder case. Court found prima facie case against applicant based on witness statements placing him at crime scene, denying bail.
Criminal bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BA442.13.doc
1
SQP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2013
Sanjay Baburao Ohale ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for Applicant
Mrs. S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State
CORAM:- ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE :- JUNE 13, 2013
P.C.
1/3
SQ Pathan
BA442.13.doc
2
on 14th June, 2012, there is not much to show the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. However, his statement shows that
2/3
SQ Pathan
BA442.13.doc
3
after getting information from the said Salman, Sambhaji Jadhav waited at Parmar Bungalow, where allegedly Tanaji and Rahul were assaulted. According to Sambhaji Jadhav’s version as reflected in the statement, the applicant was present in the Bungalow at the material time. If the version in the statement is accepted, there exists a prima facie case against the applicant of his also being involved in the conspiracy to kill the said two persons.
statement of one Salim Maniyar which also creates suspicion against the applicant.
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
3/3
SQ Pathan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a prima facie case to deny bail to the applicant accused of conspiracy to kill.
Whether the applicant had involvement in the alleged offence based on witness statements.
Whether to reject the criminal bail application in murder case.
Sanjay Baburao Ohale
The State of Maharashtra
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
