Allowed

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Dec 2014BA/2661/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application filed by an accused person alleged of facilitating a murderous assault resulting in death. The High Court examined the charge-sheet and witness statements, noting paucity of evidence regarding common criminal intent to cause death via a weapon, and granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one or more sureties to make up the like amount.

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru Gaikwad Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

911-ba-2661-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2661 OF 2014

¶4

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru
Gaikwad ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, learned Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶6

Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, learned APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶8

DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. At the hearing of the application, in view

¶11

of the chargesheet annexed, the learned APP opted

¶12

to argue the matter on the basis of the report.

¶13

2.The prayer for bail made by chargesheeted

¶14

accused No.4 in a chargesheet filed by Juna
Rajwada police station, Kolhapur vide C.R. No. 126

¶15

of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 341, 504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

1/6

Vishal

911-ba-2661-2014

Code against the applicant and five more persons is
objected by learned APP on the ground that prima
facie involvement of the applicant in facilitating
murderous assault committed by main assailant
Sachin Gaikwad being borne from the F.I.R. and the
statements of eye witnesses namely Pooja Kamble,
the wife of the deceased, mother Sanjana Kamble and
one Ravsaheb Choudhari.

¶20

3.It is her submission that the said account

¶21

of incident reveals that the applicant and his
three companions had caught hold the deceased and
started assaulting the deceased who had been to the
spot for questioning the act of the applicant and
his companions for asking to stop the work and not

¶22

allowing him to carry out crush stone for the
purpose of construction. It is her submission that
considering overall account of incident as spelt by
the said material, it is prima facie clear that all

¶23

of them were acting in furtherance of their common
intention. Learned APP thus contended that the

2/6

Vishal

911-ba-2661-2014

prayer for bail may be negatived. She further
submitted that the parties being the resident of
same locality with criminal antecedents and as such
there is every danger of repetition of such
incident in future in between the parties.

¶28

4. The learned counsel for the applicant per

¶29

contra submitted that considering the account of

¶30

incident as it is, the same does not transcend
beyond the applicant entertaining an intention
other than assaulting the deceased who had come for
questioning them. It is his submission that the
said account itself indicate that during process of

¶31

assault, the main assailant Sachin Gaikwad has
taken out a knife and inflicted two blows upon the

¶32

victim. It is submitted that there exists no

¶33

material in the chargesheet denoting that
companions of the said assailant were aware of
himself possessing a knife. It is further submitted

¶34

that said account of incident does not reveal that
after the main assailant had inflicted knife blows,

3/6

Vishal

911-ba-2661-2014

the applicant had assaulted the deceased. It is
submitted that the act attributed to the applicant
is only to the extent of thereafter having

¶39

assaulted the first informant and Ravsaheb
Choudhari. It is submitted that chargesheet does
not contain medical certificate of first informant
and Ravsaheb.

¶40

5. The perusal of the chargesheet and

¶41

particularly the account of incident as disclosed
from the F.I.R. and eye witnesses Pooja Kamble,
Sanjana Kamble and Ravsaheb Choudhari prima facie
supports the submissions canvassed by the learned

¶42

counsel for the applicant. Taking into
consideration the fact of deceased had been to the
spot for questioning the persons who had resisted
the first informant and Ravsaheb, carrying of
construction material, the submissions canvassed
that it was a sudden incident, can not be said to
be altogether devoid of merits.

4/6

Vishal

911-ba-2661-2014

6. Thus considering overall account of

¶47

incident as spelt out by the prosecution material
and the same denoting that the main assailant was
Sachin Gaikwad and paucity of the material of the
applicant sharing common intention with the said
main assailant to cause victim the injury by means
of sharp weapon and or such injuries likely to
result in his death, the prayer for bail deserves
consideration.

¶48

7. Since learned APP has pointed out that the

¶49

parties are the resident of same locality and there

¶50

are criminal antecedents, it will be necessary to

¶51

impose some conditions for taking care of
apprehension of there being likelihood of

¶52

repetition of such incident in future.

¶53

8. In the said premises, the applicant is

¶54

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

¶55

one or more sureties to make up like amount and

5/6

Vishal

911-ba-2661-2014

subject to the conditions that after release of the
applicant, (i) staying at the address mentioned in
the application (ii) attending the investigating
officer every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday in
between 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm for a period of one
month and thereafter on every Monday and Friday for
a period of two months and thereafter on every
Monday until further order, (iii) not indulging in
any activity of tampering the prosecution evidence
and/or not indulging in any activity of coercing,
threatening and pressuring the prosecution

¶60

witnesses, (iv) not directly or indirectly making
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the accusation against
them dissuading him/her from disclosing such facts
to the investigating officer and (v) not misusing
the protection granted by this order for fleeing

¶61

away or for any other oblique purpose.

¶62

Application stands disposed of.

¶63

6/6

¶64

Vishal

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru Gaikwad 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

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure Vs Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and Anr.

Yogesh Maruti Linge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daji Satyawan Shelake and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanaji Mahadev Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azharul Islam Mohd. Ibrahim Siddiqui Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harpreet Singh B. Suri Vs Pradeep M. Doshi and Anr.