Allowed

Gabbar @ Vijay D. Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013BA/752/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court was informed that the applicant was not a juvenile per Sessions court inquiry. Despite this, the judge granted bail on humanitarian grounds due to lack of trial progress, lack of recovered articles from the applicant, and his background.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Rs. 50,000 with one surety in like amount or two sureties in Rs. 25,000 each, subject to reporting to Navghar Police station every Monday and Thursday between 5:00 p.m. a

Gabbar @ Vijay D. Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

4-BA-752-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2013

¶5

GABBAR @ VIJAY D. SINGH )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶6

Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr.Amol Joshi Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Ms.R.M.Gadhavi APP for the State.

¶8

Investigating Officer Mr.S.V.Shivarkar, A.P.I., Navghar Police Station, Thane (Gramin) present in the court.

¶9

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 24^th JULY, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms.R.M.Gadhavi, the learned APP for the State.

¶12

2 In view of the contention about the applicant being a juvenile in conflict with law , the court of Sessions was directed to hold an inquiry as contemplated under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶13

avk 1/3

¶14

4-BA-752-2013

¶15

3 The Sessions court has now conducted an inquiry and has now concluded that the applicant is not a juvenile.

¶16

4 Ordinarily, therefore, the application ought to be rejected, but the learned counsel for the applicant urged, that though the applicant has failed to establish his plea, it may not be taken as a dishonest attempt on his part. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant is not educated and comes from a lower strata of the society, where proper and accurate record of the age is not maintained. He also submitted that though the previous application filed by the applicant was withdrawn, as the court was not inclined to release him on bail, it was long back i.e. in November 2012. He submitted that no progress in the trial has been made thereafter. He, therefore, urges that the matter be reviewed and the prayer for bail be considered afresh.

¶17

5 I have considered the matter afresh.

¶18

6 Undoubtedly, the presence of the applicant at the time of the alleged offence is indicated by the statements recorded in the course of investigation. The applicant is also said to be possessing a sickle .

¶19

7 The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged offence. It is not the case that any specific blow or blows were given by the applicant. That this contention is correct, is clear on the perusal of the material in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel submitted that though the applicant is alleged to have used a sickle , no such sickle

¶20

avk 2/3

¶21

4-BA-752-2013

¶22

could be recovered in the course of investigation from him. It is also submitted that no other incriminating article like blood stained clothes etc. have been recovered at the instance of the present applicant.

¶23

8 The Investigating Officer, who is present, clearly concedes, that though there is recovery of weapons and other incriminating articles from some of the other accused, there is no such recovery from, or at the instance of the present applicant.

¶24

9 The applicant is a young person of 19 years. There are no antecedents. The applicant is in custody since 6.1.2012. The trial has not yet commenced.

¶25

10 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to take a sympathetic view of the matter, and grant an opportunity to the applicant to avail of liberty, on certain terms and conditions.

¶26

11 The application is allowed.

¶27

12 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, on the condition that the applicant shall report to Navghar Police station, on every Monday and every Thursday, between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him.

¶28

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶29

avk 3/3

Gabbar @ Vijay D. Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabbar @ Vijay D. Singh 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

S. v. Packaging Vs Sonu Packaging Private Limited and Anr.

Aries Enterprises Vs Sonu Packaging Private Limited and Anr.

Shriram Chaturbhuj Parik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Shamrao Ithape Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manda Dattatraya Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Dattatraya Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra