The High Court allowed bail to the accused in a murder case, holding that circumstantial evidence focusing only on the crime scene's discovery and suspicious conduct did not establish a prima facie case of guilt.
Release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with sureties and complying with stay and reporting conditions.
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.
18_ba_1732_2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1732 OF 2014
Ramesh Datta Bhalerao ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Aniket U. Nikam, for the Applicant Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State
CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2014
P.C:
Megha 1 of 5
18_ba_1732_2014.doc
as on the same day the Applicant claimed of having stomachache and was taken for treatment but inspite of the medicines being given to him i.e the pills, he did not consume it and hurriedly left the place leaving his Mobile phone there on the count that he has to go to his village.
2 Learned APP urged that these circumstances considered on backdrop of victim girl Pooja having met with homicidal death as revealed from the other material collected by the investigation agency in the shape of Post Mortem Report, inquest Panchnama and the medical certificate leads to the conclusion that, in all probability the Applicant is perpetrator of a crime of which the outcome was the murder of Pooja.
Megha 2 of 5
18_ba_1732_2014.doc
met with by Pooja. It is urged that merely because the Applicant was found cutting grass in the field early in the morning while Pooja was passing by the field and later on dead body of the victim girl Pooja being found in the same field without there being any other circumstance of linking the Applicant with the said death, he cannot be said to be culprit as canvassed by learned APP. Mr. Nikam rightly urged that the circumstance of, Applicant arrested about 18 days after the crime making statement and pointing out at the same field in which dead body was found by itself cannot be said to be a discovery covered within the four corners of section 27 of the Evidence Act. He urged that the said evidence of event occurred after about 20 days and by then the place being known to everybody in the said village, such articulated and memorandum and discovery material would be of no use to the prosecution for advancing its case. It is submitted that merely because the Applicant did not consume the medicine obtained and /or went to his village by itself would not be a circumstance to draw the inference against him as suggested by the prosecution, as there can be several reasons for his such conduct.
Megha 3 of 5
18_ba_1732_2014.doc
charge-sheet. It can be further said that even accepting that prima facie, there is sufficient material collected during the investigation to lead to an inference of victim girl Pooja having met with homicidal death still prima facie it appears to be difficult that the other circumstances pointed by learned APP can be said to be leading to prima facie inference of the guilt of the Applicant for the death of the victim girl Pooja. Having due regard to such character of the material against the Applicant, his prayer for bail deserves consideration. Needless to add suspicion of howsoever high degree cannot take the place of legal proof.
Megha 4 of 5
18_ba_1732_2014.doc
made for the purpose of deciding the prayer for bail, nothing therein should be construed as an opinion expressed by the Court regarding the merits of the prosecution case.
Megha 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether circumstantial evidence against the applicant raises sufficient inference of guilt to deny bail in a murder case.
Whether the discovery of the crime scene by the accused twenty days after the incident constitutes valid evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Datta Bhalerao
The State of Maharashtra
P.D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
