Allowed

Ankush Pratap Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Dec 2014BA/2258/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to an applicant charged with attempt to murder, hold-up, and robbery. Despite prosecution objections citing antecedents and alleged conspiracy, the Court found no prima facie material linking the applicant to the specific incident where other co-accused were involved. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including appearance before the investigation officer and

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed upon furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one or more sureties to make like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding non-entry into Sangli district and reporting to investigat

Ankush Pratap Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

911-ba-2258-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2258 OF 2014

¶4

Ankush Pratap Shinde ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶6

Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶8

DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

.By this application accused No.1 in

¶11

chargesheet submitted by Vita police station,

¶12

Sangli as a result of investigation in C.R. No. 212

¶13

of 2013 for commission of offences under Sections

¶14

120B, 302, 394 and 201 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code has prayed for bail.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the applicant has

¶16

prayed for bail by urging that giving all the

1/6

Vishal

911-ba-2258-2014

concession to the prosecution, as per the F.I.R.
only two assailants were involved in robbing the
victim/first informant Prakash Khadse while he was
returning on his motorcycle. It is urged that
involvement of one more person is added as a
participant in the said incident through the
statement of one Abhishek Aadate. It is submitted
that out of said three persons two arrested persons
are released on bail and third is absconding.

¶21

3.It is submitted that applicant is

¶22

unnecessarily involved in the said crime on the

¶23

basis of statement of one Pratik Shinde who claims
that the applicant was discussing with him

¶24

regarding business which was effected by the first
informant and whether he was carrying money along
with him.

¶25

4.It is submitted that said Pratik Shinde is

¶26

not made an accused in the present crime. It is

2/6

Vishal

911-ba-2258-2014

urged that beside the said statement of Pratik
Shinde and material in the shape of panchanama
about the place at which such discussion had taken
place between Pratik and the applicant, there
exists no semblance material in the chargesheet

¶31

showing nexus of the applicant with the crime in
question in which the first informant was robbed or
the said incident being outcome of the said
discussion.

¶32

5.The learned counsel further contended that

¶33

application for bail preferred by the applicant was
rejected by Sessions Court merely on the ground of
himself having antecedents. It is contended that

¶34

mere antecedents would not be a good ground for
rejecting the application for bail unless prima
facie nexus of the applicant with the crime in
question is established.

¶35

6.The aforesaid submission were countered by

¶36

learned APP by submitting that nexus of the

3/6

Vishal

911-ba-2258-2014

applicant with crime in question is established by
the prosecution through the material contained in
the statement of Pratik Shinde. It is submitted

¶41

that said Pratik Shinde is not made an accused as
then he had declined to be a party to the
conspiracy.

¶42

7.The perusal of the chargesheet reveals
the position regarding material against the

¶43

applicant being as urged by learned counsel for the
applicant. The perusal of the said material reveals

¶44

that the applicant, one Lahu Shinde and Lallan
Pawar had advanced the proposal to the said witness
for robbing the first informant. The said material

¶45

prima facie does not reveal that agreement has been
reached in between them for robbing the first
informant. Even assuming that such agreement was

¶46

reached in between the applicant and other two

¶47

applicants still prima facie there is lack of

¶48

material in chargesheet denoting that first

4/6

Vishal

911-ba-2258-2014

informant was robbed for achieving the object of
the said agreement. Such prima facie inference
emerges from noninvolvement of them in incident in
question nor there exists any other material

¶53

linking the said assailants involved in the
incident with the conspiracy which had hatched in
between the applicant, Lahu Shinde and Lallan
Pawar.

¶54

8.Having regard to it, merely because some
conspiracy was hatched, still there being no nexus
of any material for coming to conclusion that
incident in question was the out come of the said
conspiracy and other coaccused are released on

¶55

bail, the prayer for bail deserves consideration by
imposing certain strict conditions.

¶56

9.Resultantly, application is allowed. The

¶57

applicant is directed to be released on bail upon
furnishing P.R. Bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (One

5/6

Vishal

911-ba-2258-2014

lac) with one or more sureties to make like amount
and subject to the conditions that after release
the applicant shall

¶62

(a) not enter within the area of Sangli District save except for attending the dates in case against him.

¶63

(b) inform his place of abode to the investigating officer.

¶64

(c) attend the investigating officer every Monday in between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm.

¶65

(d) not indulge in any activity of tampering the
prosecution evidence and/or not indulge in any
activity of coercing, threatening and pressuring

¶66

the prosecution witnesses and

¶67

(e) not misuse the bail granted by this order for fleeing away or for any other oblique purpose.

¶68

Application stands disposed of.

¶69

(P.D. KODE, J.)

¶70

6/6

¶71

Vishal

Ankush Pratap Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Pratap Shinde 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

Sarappa Mhalappa Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanaji Mohan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Popat Narde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Somnath Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaypal Appa Karnale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Chandrakant Avhad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.