Dismissed

Pramod Uttam Pawar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jun 2013BA/641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail in a murder case was rejected. The High Court found that despite discrepancies regarding the victim's teeth and the FIR filing timeline, the identification of the dead body by the wife and other circumstances established a prima facie case. Consequently, bail was not granted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Bail Application No. 641 of 2013 is rejected. Applicants are not released on bail.

Pramod Uttam Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BA-641.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 641 OF 2013

¶6

PRAMOD UTTAM PAWAR & ANR.

¶7

.. APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State

¶11

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 17/06/2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard Mr. Surel S. Shah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs. R.V. Newton, learned APP for the State.

¶14

It appears that the applicants took the victim Vijay from his house on 21/11/2012 and Vijay, who went along with them and two others, did not return. On 23/11/2012 Vijay’s wife lodged a report naming the applicants and two others, alleging that Vijay had been abducted by them. On 25/11/12 the dead

1/3

BA-641.13

body of Vijay was found in a canal.

¶19

The material against the applicants is that, they and

¶20

victim were last seen together, after which the victim was not seen alive.

¶21

The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is that, the identity of the dead body was not established. He submitted that, as per the ‘Tapas Yadi’( ____), three teeth of Vijay had already fallen, but the postmortem examination report indicates ‘teeth to be intact’.

¶22

I am not impressed by this contention. That the 'teeth were intact', whether amounts to saying that 'there were no missing teeth', is extremely doubtful and would require examination during the trial itself. It appears that, the dead body was identified as that of Vijay, by his wife. There were clothes on the dead body. At this stage, it cannot be said that the identification of the dead body as that of Vijay, is unreliable.

2/3

BA-641.13

It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged, two days after the incident. However, I do find that, it has been lodged before the dead body was discovered .

¶27

After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I

¶28

am unable to hold that, there exists no prima facie case against the applicants.

¶29

Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶30

The application is rejected.

¶31

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶32

md.saleem

¶33

3/3

Pramod Uttam Pawar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Uttam Pawar 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

Anil Phulchand Dhiwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharda Polysolours Private Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tag Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Edge Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Atmaram Kherajmal Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Madhukar Ghunte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Priyanka Purander Bagera Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.