Allowed

Ravindra S/O Vishnu Ragade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jun 2015APPLN/2366/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for regular bail, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed bail for the applicant involved in a murder case. The court noted conflicting accounts regarding the applicant's involvement compared to prosecution witness statements. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety, subject to attendance and non-tampering conditions.

Ravindra S/O Vishnu Ragade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

cri.appln. 2366.15..sxw

¶3

1/3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2366 OF 2015.

¶6

RAVINDRA S/O VISHNU RAGADE. VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

¶8

Appearance =>

¶9

Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, Advocate h/for Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. U.S. Mote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra.

¶11

CORAM : V.M. Deshpande, J. DATE : 29^th June, 2015.

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

Leave to amend.

¶14

[2] Present Criminal Application is filed by the Applicant for grant of regular bail in connection with CR No. 158/2014 registered with Police Station, Nandurbar (City), Taluka & District - Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Section/s 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶15

[3] Heard Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. U.S. Mote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

[4] First Information Report is lodged by Nilam Srawan Tamaychekar. Deceased is Sangita, who is her mother. According to the First Information Report, deceased Pinki @ Sangita was to perform

¶17

2/3

¶18

cri.appln. 2366.15..sxw

¶19

“navratra ceremony” at Gautamnagar; however, co-accused Sanjay was opposing the said idea of deceased. On 23^rd September, 2014 when first informant, her mother and her friend Aamrin had been to the power house to answer the natures call and while returning, when they came in front of office of Deputy Chief Engineer, Western Railway, Nandurbar, Sanjay called Sangita by calling her as “Pinki”. She obliged the request made by Sanjay. That time, according to the F.I.R., altercation took place amongst them. Thereafter, Sanjay asked the first informant that she should leave the place, therefore, the first informant and her friend – Aamrin started to proceed towards their house and when they had been to the house of first informant that time, her brother – Sohan came and he disclosed that there was assault on their mother. This is sum and substance of the F.I.R.

¶20

[5] From the First Information Report thus, it is clear that first informant is not eye witness. She has reported the matter to police on the basis of information received by her. There are three statements in the charge sheet, who according to prosecution are eye-witnesses. Those are of Sohan, Rohan and Satish. All three witnesses are minor. Police statements are also recorded and also their statements before the learned Magistrate are also recorded.

¶21

[6] Both the statements of Sohan shows that present Applicant caught hold Sangita and then Sanjay gave sickle blow. Police statements of Rohan and Satish show that present Applicant caught hold Sangita and Sanjay gave sickle blow. However, their statement before the learned Magistrate clearly show that they have not attributed any overtact to the present Applicant. Thus, presently there are two versions in the investigation papers about the role of the Applicant. That leads me to pass the following order :-

¶22

3/3

¶23

cri.appln. 2366.15..sxw

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) Criminal Application is allowed.

¶26

(ii) Applicant - RAVINDRA S/O VISHNU RAGADE shall be released on regular bail on he executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- [Rs. Twenty Five Thousand.] with one solvent surety in the like amount, in connection with CR No. 158/2014 registered with Police Station, Nandurbar (City), Taluka & District - Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Section/s 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶27

(iii) Bail before trial court.

¶28

(iv) Applicant shall attend Police Station, Nandurbar (City), Taluka & District - Nandurbar twice in a week, preferably on every Saturday and Tuesday and shall remain in the said Police Station between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., till trial is over.

¶29

(v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

(vi) With this Criminal Application is allowed and same is disposed of, accordingly.

¶31

(V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)

Ravindra S/O Vishnu Ragade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Vishnu Ragade 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

Dinesh @ Shivaji S/O Ganpatrao @ Vitthalrao Chaudhari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangita D/O Kacharu Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil S/O Sitaram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh S/O Tukaram Khachane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Mustafa S/O Shaikh Dastgir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munawar Khan S/O Darbar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra