Disposed

Dhananjay @ Dhanraj Keshav Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013BA/465/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mid-criminal High Court of Bombay rejected bail applications for two accused in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence. The court found a prima facie case due to inter-connected material against co-accused and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceeding within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; trial to be expedited within six months.

Dhananjay @ Dhanraj Keshav Jadhav Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/4 (1)BA-465-13

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.465 OF 2013

¶6

Dhananjay @ Dhanraj Keshav Jadhav ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant.

¶8

Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.478 OF 2013

¶11

Mauli Somnath Murkute ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶12

Mr.Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶14

DATED : APRIL 24, 2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 These two applications are being disposed of by this common order, as the applicants in both these applications are the

¶17

2/4 (1)BA-465-13

¶18

accused in one and the same case i.e. Sessions Case No.833/13 arising out of C.R.No.126/12 of Lonikand Police Station.

¶19

2 Heard Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate for the applicant in BA No.465/13 and Mr.Vikas Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.478/13. Heard Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶20

3 The applicant – Dhananjay Jadhav (Criminal B.A 465/13) is the accused no.1, and the applicant - Mauli Murkute (Criminal B.A. 478/13) is the accused no.3 in the said case. One Shivaji Hajare is the remaining accused in the said case i.e. accused no.2. The case against the applicants and other accused is based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, there was some dispute between the applicant Dhananjay and the deceased Sandeep, as the applicant Dhananjay was not taking steps to have the name of the deceased entered into the records of the Revenue Department, in respect of a certain land which had been purchased by the deceased from the applicant Dhananjay.

¶21

4 Though the nature of material against both the applicants is not identical and the learned counsel for the applicants have referred to the material available against their respective clients, in my opinion, the entire case of the prosecution, as a whole, ought to be considered at this stage. It is only on such consideration, whether there exists a prima facie case against the applicants, or any of them, can be properly determined. It appears that there is material against the accused no.3 Shivaji Hajare, who

¶22

3/4 (1)BA-465-13

¶23

is not before me as the applicant for bail, to show his involvement in the alleged offence. The said Shivaji Hajare and the applicant Mauli Murkute are the employees of the applicant Dhananjay, working in his hotel. It appears that applicant Dhananjay and the said Shivaji Hajare had gone with the deceased in his white Maruti Car. It also appears that they returned after sometime, and then all the three accused were seen burning something, which according to the prosecution, were their own clothes which were stained by blood.

¶24

5 Mr.Mundargi, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that this circumstance was not satisfactorily indicated, inasmuch as neither the deceased was seen in the motor car in question, nor was the number of the said motor car indicated by any other witnesses. Though this is true, this is not the only material against the applicants and there appears to be some other material creating grave suspicion against both the applicants.

¶25

6 It appears that the applicant Mauli and the said coaccused Shivaji Hajare had purchased an iron knife from one Smt.Radhabai, which allegedly was used for committing the murder. In my opinion, the incriminating material against each accused, if viewed in isolation, cannot present a proper picture of the matter. It is because once the connection of the different accused with one another is established, the incriminating material against one of them might incriminate another of them also. The incriminating material against Shivaji Hajare makes out a prima facie case of the alleged offences against him, and judged from the

¶26

4/4 (1)BA-465-13

¶27

aforesaid angle, there exists a prima facie case against the applicants also. Going by the broad probabilities, the said Shivaji Hajare and also the applicant Mauli having acted independently, without there being any involvement of the applicant Dhananjay in the alleged offences, is a theory which cannot be lightly accepted at this stage. It can therefore certainly be said that there exists a grave suspicion against both the applicants of their having committed the alleged offences.

¶28

7 Under the circumstances, I do not think it fit to release the applicants on bail.

¶29

8 Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant Dhananjay however, submitted that, in that event, the trial be ordered to be expedited. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it seems proper to direct so.

¶30

9 The application is rejected.

¶31

10 However, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial, and endeavour to complete it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dhananjay @ Dhanraj Keshav Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay @ Dhanraj Keshav Jadhav 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

Deepak Gajanan Dhankude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naresh Bansilal Hiran and Anr. Vs Sushanta Tapan Pore and Anr.

Mansing Yadavrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Alias Raju Kaluram Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Baban Wanga and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramu Kashinath Dalvi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra