Allowed

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jun 2014BA/500/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant charged with murder under IPC 302. Release was granted due to procedural lapses in identification, lack of recovery of weapon, and extended custody before framing of charge, even though the co-accused who instigated the crime had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000 each.

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

tilak 1/3 (7)BA-500-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.500 OF 2014

¶5

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Anand S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

Mrs.V.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 12^th JUNE, 2014. 

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 Heard Mr.Anand S. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the Bail Application, and the annexures thereto.

¶11

2 The applicant is one of the four accused in C.R.No.113/12 registered with Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur. The allegation against him and the other accused is in respect of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC.

¶12

3 I have gone through the First Information Report, and statements recorded in the course of investigation.

¶13

tilak 2/3 (7)BA-500-14

¶14

4 One Haseena @ Rajiya is alleged to have instigated the applicant, and two others to assault and kill one Wasim. The other accused, including the said Rajiya, have already been released on bail.

¶15

5 The applicant's previous application for bail was rejected by this Court (Bail Application No.1874/12 decided on 19^th December 2012). By the same order, two other accused in this case were released on bail. Since the role attributed to the applicant was thought to be graver, at that time, the applicant was not released on bail. At that time, Haseena @ Rajiya also had not been released on bail. Later, Haseena @ Rajiya was released on bail by this Court (Bail Application No.186/13 decided on 15^th March 2013) (Coram S.S. Jadhav, J).

¶16

6 I find that the role attributed to the present applicant is that he stabbed the deceased with a knife. However, the applicant has not been named in the First Information Report, or in the statements of the witnesses, and has been described as 'unknown offender'. No Test Identification Parade was held in the course of investigation, and it appears that the applicant was simply shown to the witnesses by the police at the police station itself, and thereafter the confirmation of his identity was obtained. Apart from this, the knife allegedly used by the applicant has not been recovered from him. It appears that a knife was recovered from the said Smt.Haseena @ Rajiya.

¶17

7 The learned APP pointed out that the order dated 15^th March 2013 passed by this Court releasing Haseena @ Rajiya on bail, contains a factual incorrect statement to the effect that even the present applicant has been released on bail (paragraph no.4 of the order). It is true that, that the applicant was not released on bail, was not pointed

¶18

tilak 3/3 (7)BA-500-14

¶19

out to the Court at that time, but this aspect is hardly relevant inasmuch as it is a fact that the said Haseena @ Rajiya who was the person to instigate the alleged assault, has already been released on bail.

¶20

8 The applicant is in custody since 28^th May 2012. I am informed that the trial has not yet commenced, and that even a charge has not yet been framed. About 1 ½ years has elapsed since the last rejection of the applicant's Bail Application, and as aforesaid, thereafter Smt.Haseena @ Rajiya has been released on bail. Under the circumstances, I think it fit to release the applicant on bail.

¶21

9 Application is allowed.

¶22

10 Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/ each.

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble 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

Laxman Chandrakant Chalake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swapnil Sayaji Waje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pima Kasana Mavi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samit Dilip Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Daji Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve Vs the State of Maharashtra