Criminal bail application allowed on changed circumstance where C.A. report showed no blood on the knife recovered at applicant's instance, undermining prosecution case despite earlier rejection.
Released on bail with execution of PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.
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.
903-ba-1872-14
1
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 1872 of 2014
Jaykumar Gopichand Aswani … Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/with Ganesh Gole, i/by Rashmi Gangwani for the Applicant.
Shri Avinash Kamkhedkar for the original complainant in APPP No. 606 of 2014.
Smt. A.R.Mane, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 26th September, 2014.
P.C.
1 of 4
2 903-ba-1872-14
which was allegedly seized at the instance of the present applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 19th July, 2013 i.e. on the next day of the incident. Apart from this circumstance, it is also strongly argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that even the recovery of the knife, more so in view of the present new changed circumstance as to not finding the blood on the knife, is suspicious inasmuch as though at the time of earlier bail application all the material was before the Court, including the seizure panchnama, one aspect was not touched and i.e. regarding the key of the shop from which the said knife was allegedly recovered, was with the investigating agency since the time of the arrest of the applicant and other co-accused persons. By pointing out this aspect as to the key with the police it is submitted that recovery subsequently on the next day at the instance of the applicant is vulnerable inasmuch as on the earlier night definitely there was a thorough search of the shop and from where the applicant and other co-accused were arrested.
2 of 4
3 903-ba-1872-14
the factual position is again required to be construed by this Court that there was premeditation, no enmity between the applicant and the victim and it is a case of single blow. It must be said that said last part of the argument may not come to the shelter of the applicant as those aspects were dealt with by this Court while rejecting the earlier bail application as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant-intervener. However, still the changed circumstance is required to be viewed in different perspective mainly on the aspect as to the role attributed to the present applicant. Without much going into detail as to how the incident had occurred as those details were already discussed by this Court in the earlier order dated 16th January,2014, suffice it to say that it is a case of single blow and the weapon used is knife and according to the case of the prosecution this knife was recovered from the shop which was under lock and key with the police. Definitely it is the changed circumstance as to finding of no blood is of much significance and is required to be viewed differently.
3 of 4
4 903-ba-1872-14
had witnessed the incident of giving blow on the victim by the present applicant by using this knife. Considering the changed circumstance in the opinion of this Court this matter is required to be viewed in different perspective and hence the present application is allowed with following order.
ORDER :
A) The applicant-accused be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
B) After availing the bail, the applicant shall attend concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till conclusion of the trial.
C) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and not to tamper with the prosecution evidence and any such single act will render him liable for cancellation of bail in the
event of any application for cancellation of bail is made.
D) The oral request on behalf of the Intervener for stay of the present order is not accepted;
E) Application is disposed of in above terms.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the changed circumstance of no blood detected on the knife recovered at the instance of the applicant warrants grant of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaykumar Gopichand Aswani
The State of Maharashtra
A. R. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
