Allowed

Vitthal Laxman Kurthe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Feb 2014APPLN/701/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard a bail application by two relatives of an accused accused of negligently causing death via fire. It held bail can be granted to one applicant despite a dying declaration against a co-applicant due to nature of allegations and duration of custody, but rejected bail for the other due to conflicting witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of Vithal Kurhe allowed with one surety and security of Rs.25,000; bail application of Nitin Kurhe rejected.

Vitthal Laxman Kurthe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 701-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2014

¶5

Vithal s/o Laxman Kurhe 2. Nitin s/o Vitthal Kurhe ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. V. D. Sapkal h/for Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal for the applicants Mr. S. R. Palnitkar, APP for the respondent-State

¶7

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 26th February, 2014

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The application is filed for bail. Both the sides are heard. This court has gone through the papers of investigation.

¶10

Crime is registered on the basis of dying declaration of deceased

¶11

Sunita. After the death of first wife, the applicant had married with Sunita three years prior to the date of incident. The deceased wanted to have child from Vithal but as Vithal had issues from the first wife, he did not want to have child from the deceased. On that ground there was dispute between Vithal and deceased and there used to frequent quarrels between them. The deceased had suspicion that Vithtal was keeping illicit relations with other women. On that ground also there used to be quarrels.

¶12

1/3

¶13

2 701-14

¶14

On 3.10.2013, after 10.00 a.m. there was quarrel between Vithal

¶15

and deceased as the deceased had seen the applicant no.1 with one woman. On that day she was beaten by Vitthal. Deceased was not feeling well due to beating and she was requesting Vithal to take her to dispensary. Vittal said that he would not take her to dispensary and he would rather send her to the complainant’s house. On this ground there was quarrel on, 04.10.2013 again. At about 10.00 a.m. when the quarrel was going on Sheetal, daughter of the applicant from his first wife came there. She said that she was fade up due to quarrels and she said that she would set fire to herself. When she started puring kerosene on her person, deceased intervened. Then, some kerosene fell on the person of the deceased. In the meantime, Nitin, son of Vithal from first wife came there. Nitin, applicant no.2 thought that deceased was attempting to set fire to his sister Sheetal. In dying declaration, the deceased has disclosed that Nitin pushed her inside house and then he threw a burning matchstick at her. Her cloths caught fire. Vithal shifted her to Hospital. In the Hospital when enquiry was made by father of deceased, she made similar disclosure to her father Chimaji.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are statements of two witnesses like wife of Nitin and aforesaid Sheetal to the effect that deceased had set fire to herself. He submitted that in view of the statements of these two ladies, even Nitin is entitled to get bail. This Court 2/3

¶17

3 701-14

¶18

holds that this submission is not acceptable as at present there is material

¶19

like dying declaration of the deceased against Nitin and it needs to be preferred to police statements given under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The aforesaid statements are of close relatives of Nitin and there is possibility of tempering with the prosecution witnesses from Nitin. This Court holds that this is not fit case to grant bail to Nitin, applicant no.2. However, in view of nature of allegation made against the applicant No.1 Vitiahl and as he is behind bars since 08.10.2013, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep him behind bars till the disposal of the case. In the result application of Vitthal Kurhe is allowed.

¶20

The applicant No.1 is to be released on bail on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount. He is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

The application of Applicant No. 2 Nitin s/o Vitthal Kurhe is rejected.

¶22

( T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶23

JPC

¶24

3/3

Vitthal Laxman Kurthe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Laxman Kurthe and Another 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

Shaikh Farzana Shaikh Jalal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Shivchand Chudiwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Digambar @ Datta Balaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr.Dinesh Babulal Nimba Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maroti Bassappa Kumdale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Saudagar Karale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others