Dismissed

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne v. the State of M Aharashtra

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014BA/1028/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected two bail applications filed by applicants accused in a criminal trial involving injury and conspiracy to eliminate a witness. The court held that bail cannot be granted when the trial is about to start due to risks of evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; judge directed expedite hearing of the Sessions Case.

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne Vs the State of M Aharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1028 OF 2014

¶3

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶4

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1033 OF 2014

¶5

Abhinandan Zende .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. S. R. Borulkar, i/by Mr. Manoj Pail, for the Applicant in B.A. No.1028 of 2014 Mr. Ameet Anand Palkar, for the Applicant in Application No. 1033 of 2014.

¶7

Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 25^th September, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

These applications are filed for bail

¶11

as they are arrested in connection with

¶12

C.R.No.285 of 2013, registered at Karad City Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 143, 144, 147, 120B of the

¶13

Page No.1 of 7

¶14

906 ba 1028-g

¶15

Indian penal Code, and under section 3(25), 27

¶16

of the Arms and also under Section 135 of the

¶17

Mumbai Police Act. It is the case of the prosecution that injured Salim Mohmed Shaikh and co-accused Bhanudas Dhotre are residing in the same locality. The applicants are friends of each other. There are two groups. One headed by informant Salim Shaikh and the other

¶18

by Bhanudas Dhotre, competing with each other

¶19

to show their superiority. In the year 2009, the first informant when was brought in the Court as he is accused in similar matter, at that time applicant accused Abhinandan Zende, who is accused No.10 and others fired towards the informant. However, the first informant

¶20

was saved and so the offence is registered against the applicant accused Abhinandan Zende under C.R.No.312 of 2009. Then thereafter the informant and the accused Nos 3 and 6 have conflict in respect of auction of the plot in the river bank for sand excavation in 2013. it

¶21

Page No.2 of 7

¶22

906 ba 1028-g

¶23

is the case of the prosecution that in the month of August, 2013, accused No.1 Bhanudas

¶24

Dhotre, accused No.6 Yuvraj alongwith applicants accused conspired at Hotel Raje at Bhiwandi and obtained firearms to eliminate the informant. Then on 30.8.2013, when the informant came in the District Court, Karad, to attend the Court matter, at that time the applicant accused and other accused fired at

¶25

him and he got injured and also fired at other witnesses and ran away and therefore, they are prosecuted for above offences.

¶26

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶27

accused has submitted that both the applicants accused are falsely implicated in this case.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for applicant Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madane submitted that the prosecution could not collect any evidence against the applicant accused and whatever evidence is produced is not legally admissible and there is no eye witness identifying the

¶29

Page No.3 of 7

¶30

906 ba 1028-g

¶31

accused. No eye witness has taken the name of

¶32

applicant Madane and stated that he was

¶33

present at the time of firing or he fired

¶34

towards the informant. He further submitted

¶35

that the evidence of test identification

¶36

parade which is relied by the prosecution is

¶37

defective and illegal as the procedure for conducting test identification parade is not

¶38

followed by the learned Magistrate. He pointed

¶39

out that as per statement of informant and

¶40

other witnesses, four persons were involved in

¶41

the actual shooting. However, at the time of

¶42

test identification parade witnesses Aiyaz Rohile and Preetam Hodekar have identified 7

¶43

persons who were present at the time of

¶44

shooting. He further submitted that it is necessary for identifying witnesses to state

¶45

the reason of the identification. He further

¶46

submitted that the prosecution has relied on

¶47

extra judicial confession of Khairmode. However, that is not admissible unless there

¶48

Page No.4 of 7

¶49

906 ba 1028-g

¶50

is some corroboration. He submits that as no

¶51

role is attributed and no test identification

¶52

is conducted following the procedure, it cannot be relied. He, therefore, prays that the applicants accused who are in the prison

¶53

since 10.9.2013, be released on bail.

¶54

Abhinandan Zende submits that there is no

¶55

evidence against applicant to show that the

¶56

accused was present at the time of incident.

¶57

As per prosecution case he is one from whom firearms were secured by the applicants accused and there is no evidence against him. He be released on bail.

¶58

application. She relied on the statements of

¶59

eye witnesses namely Aiyaz Rohile, Lajam

¶60

Hodekar, Pritam Hodekar. She also relied on

¶61

the statement of one Bhushan Khairmode,

¶62

memorandum of the the test identification

¶63

parade, so also she relied on the

¶64

Page No.5 of 7

¶65

906 ba 1028-g

¶66

supplementary statements of the witnesses on

¶67

the point conspiracy. She relied on the

¶68

statement of Sanjay @ Salim Kagadi, Ajay Jadhav who appeared to have identified only four accused persons to whom they have seen at the time of actual shooting.

¶69

There is one witness on the point of

¶70

conspiracy. The evidentiary value of test

¶71

identification parade will be assessed at the

¶72

time of the trial. The incident has taken place in the day light in the Court premises

¶73

in presence of eye witnesses and it is very

¶74

serious. There is evidence on motive. In the case of Abhinandan Zende, he was involved in

¶75

the similar case of shooting by present

¶76

informant. The applicant accused Zende has criminal antecedents. The learned APP has

¶77

pointed that the the matter was fixed for

¶78

framing charge on 24^th September, 2014,

¶79

however, adjournment was sought from the accused. As such on merit, I am not of the

¶80

Page No.6 of 7

¶81

906 ba 1028-g

¶82

view that bail can be granted to these applicants accused especially when the trial is about to start and there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence, pressurizing the witnesses, if these applicants accused are released on bail. The applications are rejected. The learned Judge may endeavour to expedite the hearing of Sessions Case till 31^st December, 2014.

¶83

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶84

Page No.7 of 7

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne v. the State of M Aharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne v. the State of M Aharashtra

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

Jaywant Prabhakar Bhande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Bhujanga Bhandary Vs Sushma Bhandary

Ajay Mahadeo Shinge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol @ Sarkit Sampat Madne Vs the State of M Aharashtra

Abhinandan Zende Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reshma Saddam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra