Dismissed

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jun 2013BA/603/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed by Prasad Patil and Nilesh quashing police proceedings in a case of assault and death. The application regarding Prasad Patil was allowed to be withdrawn. The court examined the investigation material, witness statements, and allegations against Nilesh.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail was rejected. Release on bail was denied to applicant no.2 Nilesh.

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and Anr. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3 (6)BA-603-13

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.603 of 2013

¶6

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and anr ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr.K.S.Patil, Advocate for the applicants.

¶8

Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED : JUNE 25, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Heard Mr.K.S. Patil, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard Mrs.R.V. Newton, learned APP for the State.

¶13

2 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have glanced through the Bail Application, and the annexures thereto.

¶14

3 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that so far as applicant no.1 Prasad Patil is concerned, he has instructions to withdraw the application, as the said applicant intends to file a separate application for bail.

¶15

2/3 (6)BA-603-13

¶16

4 The application, so far as it relates to the applicant no.1 Prasad Patil, is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a separate application for bail.

¶17

5 Learned counsel for the applicants is therefore heard only with respect to the question of grant of bail to the applicant no.2 – Nilesh.

¶18

6 The First Information Report has been lodged by the brother of the deceased, who is not an eye witness to the incident. However, he claims to have learnt about the incident from some others. This information was given by co-accused Kiran, co-accused Baban and co-accused Sunil, who were with the deceased, and who were the friends of the deceased. Later on, it turned out that they had given false information, and the actual happenings were different.

¶19

7 So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, his involvement in the alleged offence was revealed in the course of investigation, apparently, on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused. An iron fighter is said to have been recovered at his instance in the course of investigation, but the learned counsel for the applicants rightly pointed out that it is not the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by such iron fighter.

¶20

8 However, there are three persons who claimed to have seen the assault, and they have implicated the applicants as one of the assailants. The learned counsel submitted that this material was

¶21

3/3 (6)BA-603-13

¶22

not reliable inasmuch as the statements of these persons have been recorded a month after the incident.

¶23

9 I have considered the matter.

¶24

10 It is difficult to hold at this stage, that the material showing the involvement of the applicant no.2, is not reliable.

¶25

11 Moreover, it is submitted that there are two previous cases of bodily offences, pending against the applicant no.2.

¶26

12 Some of the accused in this case have been released on bail, but their case does not seem to be on par with that of the applicant no.2.

¶27

13 The contention of the learned counsel that the injury which proved to be fatal was not caused by the present applicant, cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶28

14 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to release the applicant no.2 on bail.

¶29

15 Application is rejected.

¶30

16 The Trial Court shall expedite the trial, and endeavour to complete it, as early as possible.

¶31

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and Anr. 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

Sachindanand D. Shenoy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeepsingh Badansingh Cohhan Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Tarachand Bhosale @ Ramesh Tarachand Kale @ Vilas Tarachand Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaya Talakshi Chheda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Appasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanif Husainmiya Subhedar Vs the State of Maharashtra