In an appeal against bail, the court held that a strong prima facie case exists as the applicants are accused of firing weapons causing two deaths. The court noted firearms were recovered and ballistic evidence corroborated involvement. Since a charge has been framed, bail was denied.
Bail application rejected; applicants remain in custody.
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.
3-BA-648-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2013
ANANDA MANKU PATIL AND ANR. )...APPLICANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Prakash Naik i/b. Mr.Chetan Patil Advocate for the Applicants.
Mrs.Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal APP for the State.
Mr.Shekhar Ingawale Advocate for the Intervenor.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 16th JULY, 2013.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mr.Prakash Naik, the learned counsel for the applicants, Mrs.Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal, the learned APP for the State, and Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, the learned counsel for the first informant, who was permitted to intervene in the matter and make submissions opposing the grant of bail.
avk 1/3
3-BA-648-2013
2 I have gone through the First Information Report (FIR). It clearly implicates the present applicants. The role of actually firing from fire arms has been attributed to both of them. The injuries caused by firing apparently resulted in the death of two persons, who were fired at. It is not disputed before me that the fire arms have been recovered from the applicants. That, the Ballistic Expert’s Report indicates that the bullets by which the dead victims were hit, had been fired from the fire arms used by the applicants.
3 Thus, there exists a strong prima facie case of serious offences against both the applicants.
4 The only contention advanced by Mr.Prakash Naik is that a cross case also arose out of the incident, and that, the alleged incident has taken place in exercise of the right of private defence. He submitted the version reflected in the FIR is not the correct version of the happenings.
5 Though a cross case has been registered at the instance of one of the members of the applicants’ party, it appears that the victims in the cross case have sustained not very serious injuries. Whether the incident occurred in exercise of the right of private defence or not, would necessarily be required to be determined during the trial only, and at this stage, it cannot be presumed that it was so.
avk 2/3
3-BA-648-2013
6 Moreover, I am informed that Charge has already been framed. The case has been kept for recording of evidence. It is, therefore, to be expected that the trial would be over within a reasonable time.
7 Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to release the applicants on bail.
8 The application is rejected.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants are eligible for bail given the serious nature of the offences and the stage of trial.
Whether the alleged right of private defence justifies bail at the current stage.
ANANDA MANKU PATIL AND ANR.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
