Dismissed

Hulya @ Sandip Pandit Bhosle v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2014APPLN/358/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal contempt application for bail in a murder and robbery case, the court rejected the plea. The facts involved the murders of the husband of the complainant and grievous injuries, with stolen articles recovered based on a confessional statement which the court deemed usable against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail stands rejected.

Hulya @ Sandip Pandit Bhosle Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 358/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.358 of 2014

¶4

Hulya @ Sandip Pandit Bhosle. .. Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.

¶7

Shri. Kakasaheb J. Tandale, Advocate, for applicant.

¶8

Shri. B.L. Dhus, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent.

¶9

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY 2014

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This application is filed for bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation.

¶12

Crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Parvatibai Badve. The incident took place on the night between 7-12-2012 and 8-12-2012. On that night she

¶13

2 Application 358/2014

¶14

was sleeping in the house. Her husband was sleeping in another room. At about 2.00 hours four unknown persons broke open the house and entered in their bed room. They assaulted both, the husband and the complainant Parvatibai. They took away valuables like ornaments, some bank receipts of fixed deposits, mobile handset and other articles from their house. Parvatibai became unconscious due to assault made on her head and there was severe bleeding. On the next morning when she became conscious, she realized that her husband was murdered by the robbers. On the basis of the report crime came be registered for offences under sections 394, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The record shows that husband of the complainant died due to injuries caused on that night by the robbers. The spot panchanama, inquest panchnama and other documents are consistent with this story. Particulars of the ornaments which were taken away were given subsequently and the particulars show that so many articles worth Rs.7.25 lakhs were stolen.

¶16

3 Application 358/2014

¶17

During the course of investigation one Parsha Gautam Kale came to be arrested. On 17-12-2012 he gave statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and on the basis of that statement, articles like one gold neckless worth Rs.21,000/-, one gold Mangalsutra worth Rs.78,000/- came to be recovered. These ornaments were stolen in the present case. This person took police to his relative – Sharda Chavan. She is also made accused and her statement came to be recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act on 20-12-2012. She had purchased the gold ornament from Parsha and that ornament from the present case is also recovered by the police. Some ornaments sold to Dahale Jewelers are also recovered.

¶18

The record of investigation shows that Parsha gave confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate. This Court has perused the statement. Entire story of the incident is given by Parsha in his confessional statement. On the basis of statement given by this person himself the stolen articles are recovered. The confessional statement needs to be given due importance in this case. In view of

¶19

4 Application 358/2014

¶20

section 30 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statement can be used against the present applicant.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.105 of 2013 filed by Sharda Chavan. This Court granted bail in favour of Sharda Chavan. The role played by Sharda Chavan is also discussed. She had purchased the stolen property. In any case it is surprising to note that to this Court the relevant confessional statement was not shown by the prosecution. Care needs to be taken by the prosecution wing in such cases as the Courts do not get sufficient time for considering the record. Every day many such cases are decided and papers of investigation are produced during arguments. In such cases it is the duty of the learned Public Prosecutor to bring to the notice of the Court each and every relevant document. If such care is not taken the Court may commit mistake and may grant bail even in such serious cases.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid record and discussion, this Court holds that this is not a fit case to grant bail to

¶23

5 Application 358/2014

¶24

the applicant. One murder was committed and grievous injuries were caused to the complainant which were five in number. Injuries are caused on the head and there is fracture of bone of face.

¶25

In the result, the application stands rejected. The observations made are only for the purposes of the present proceeding.

¶26

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶27

rsl

Hulya @ Sandip Pandit Bhosle v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hulya @ Sandip Pandit Bhosle 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Tukaram Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohansingh Ramsingh Hujuriya (Sharma) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Firoz Shaikh Mahmood Vs the State of Maharashtra

Haribhau Kundlik Harishchandre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Taleb Shaha Ahmed Shaha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Bhima Sangle Vs the State of Maharashtra