Dismissed

Vaijinath Kisan Ambure v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Dec 2015APPA/1503/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC (implied context of suspension in appeal), the Bombay High Court dismissed the request for renewal of bail. The court held evidence of murder and the strong case against the applicant did not warrant suspension of sentence. The court did not follow parity ground.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of substantive sentence and enlargement on bail dismissed.

Vaijinath Kisan Ambure Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1503 OF 2015 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2013

¶5

Vaijnath Kisan Ambure *Versus*	….	Applicant
The State of Maharashtra	….	Respondent

¶6

Mr. Anand Shivaji Patil for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, ACTING C.J. & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 21ST DECEMBER 2015.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This application is preferred by Original Accused No.1 seeking suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail during pendency of this Appeal.

¶12

This is second Bail Application preferred by him. The earlier Bail Application No.1612 of 2014 came to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application, in view of the order passed by this Court on 19^th December 2014.

¶13

1/3

¶14

APPA-1503-95.doc

¶15

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant is that, on the ground of parity, he is entitled to be released on bail, as Accused No.1 Sunita, his mother, is already released on bail by this Court vide its order dated 20^th November 2013 passed in Criminal Application No.1581 of 2013. However, perusal of the said order itself reveals that Accused No.1 Sunita was released on the ground that she is a woman and aged person, as she is said to be about 50 years of age, though, prima facie also, a strong case has been established against her. Now, both these grounds are not applicable to the present Applicant to claim the bail on the ground of parity.

¶16

The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. The maximum punishment imposed on him is that of life imprisonment. The evidence on record that of PW-1 Dr. Prabha Sakhare proves that there were as many as 34 injuries found on the dead body of Applicant's wife Urmila at the time of postmortem examination. Those injuries were caused by the hard and blunt object like the stick. The said stick is recovered at the instance of the Applicant, as can be seen from the evidence of Panch Witness PW-3 Bharat Vanjari. The evidence of PW-1 Dr. Sakhare proves that there was

¶17

2/3

¶18

APPA-1503-95.doc

¶19

fracture of hyoid bone and the cause of death was 'asphyxia due to throttling' . The evidence of PW-5 Shrimant Pachpund, the father of deceased Urmila, proves that there was demand of the amount of Rs.15,000/- and on that count, Urmila was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment. There is further evidence of PW-8 Nagnath Pachpund, brother of deceased Urmila to that effect, as in his presence Urmila was abused and harassed for failure to satisfy the demand. PW-9 Parmeshwar Chavan has also deposed about such ill-treatment.

¶20

In our considered opinion, in view of this evidence on record, the case against the Applicant, being prima facie strong, we are not inclined to suspend his substantive sentence of imprisonment merely because he was on bail during the trial. Hence, the application stands dismissed.

¶21

As the Appeal is of the year 2013, the hearing of the Appeal is expedited.

¶22

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

3/3

¶24

APPA-1503-95.doc

Vaijinath Kisan Ambure v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijinath Kisan Ambure 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

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Rahan Abdul Ajim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Ramchandra Bhojane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaijinath Kisan Ambure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sopan Raghunath Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra