In criminal appeals, the bench examined evidence regarding an offence. The court found that the trial court's findings were sustainable, the prosecution evidence was corroborated, and no case for bail was made out. Both bail applications were rejected.
Both applications for bail are rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2840.15Criappln
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2840 OF 2015 IN APEAL/447/2015 WITH APPLN/3280/2015 IN APEAL/476/2015 WITH APEAL/447/2015 WITH APEAL/476/2015
SHAIKH HAJI SHAIKH BABU VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Advocates for Applicants : Mr. Chatterji Joydeep & Mr. A.R. Gaikwad APPs for Respondent/State : Mr. B.L. Dhas & Mr. K.S. Patil
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. Dated: August 26, 2015
PER COURT :-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. It is submitted that, the evidence of PW-4 – Pooja Jamdade is not reliable. Her statement was recorded by the Police belatedly. If the cross-examination of PW-4 is perused carefully, it appears that, she stated about the commission of offence before recording her statement. It is submitted that, the evidence of PW-4 suffers from
2840.15Criappln
2
omissions, contradictions and exonerations. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-4. Even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, in as much as, the Doctor has not opined that, whether the injuries caused are responsible for causing death and the death caused is due to the said injuries. In addition to the above, the learned counsel appearing for accused – Indubai submits that, Indubai was on bail during the trial. It is submitted that, there are three children, who are dependent upon her. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the applications for bail may be allowed.
Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State, relying upon the findings recorded by the trial Court and the notes of evidence, submits that, the trial Court has properly considered the evidence of PW-4, which gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-5, coupled with medical evidence and all other evidence. Therefore, he submits that, the applications may be rejected.
2840.15Criappln
3
2840.15Criappln
4
Court, as expeditiously as possible, however, in any case, within three months from today.
( A.M. BADAR, J. )
( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
SGA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail applications filed by the accused should be allowed or rejected in view of the reliability of prosecution evidence and lack of corroboration.
Whether the trial court findings are sustainable in light of evidence of PW-4 and PW-5.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHAIKH HAJI SHAIKH BABU
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S.S. SHINDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
