Allowed

Justin Richard Jems v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jul 2015BA/276/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to an accused facing prosecution for murder under IPC sections 302 and 34. The court distinguished the sudden fight from a pre-meditated plan and allowed release subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering and residence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a Rs. 30,000/- bond with sureties, undertaking not to tamper with evidence or harass witnesses, and attending court regularly.

Justin Richard Jems Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 ba276-15

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2015

¶6

Justin Richard Jems ..Applicant.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for the applicant. Mr.J.H.Ramugade, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : 20TH JULY, 2015

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

This application is made for bail. The applicant-accused is facing prosecution under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.127/14 of Khadki police station which was registered at the instance of Ashok Ganpat Salvi on 22^nd May, 2004. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant and his associates Amin and Manoj on the night of 18^th May, 2014 were consuming liquor. At that time, there was sudden verbal altercations between Prakash Suryavanshi and these three persons. Suddenly, the associates Amin and Manoj started hitting Prakash with hands and stones. The present applicant-accused also assaulted with hands. Prakash succumbed to the injuries on 19^th May, 2014 and thereafter the offence was registered against the applicant-accused. The

¶15

2 ba276-15

¶16

applicant-accused was arrested on 22^nd May, 2014. Hence this bail application.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submitted that the role attributed to the applicant-accused is that he assaulted the deceased with hands. It was a sudden fight between the applicant-accused, co-accused and the deceased. Learned prosecutor opposed the application submitting that it is a case of pre-mediated murder. He submitted that considering the statements of the informant and the post mortem notes, the bail should not be granted to the applicant-accused.

¶18

Perused the FIR. It appears that the incident had taken place out of a sudden quarrel. It is not a pre-mediated plan. The FIR discloses that the applicant-accused assaulted the deceased with hands. In the post mortem, the cause of death is mentioned as head injuries and viscera was preserved. Considering the allegations made and the cause of death and considering the period for which the applicant-accused is detained in prison, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence the order.

¶19

(i) The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶20

3 ba276-15

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or the harass the witnesses;

¶22

(iii) The Applicant shall furnish his residential address (es), cell phone number(s), land-line number(s) to the investigating officer.

¶23

(iv) The applicant to attend the Court dates regularly.

¶24

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Justin Richard Jems v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Justin Richard Jems 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

Vijay Sadasshiv Bhilare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Maruti Harane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinkya Suhas Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramakant Baban Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Jayram Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra