Rohit Kumar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court rejected the second bail application of an accused facing murder charges. The judge held that recovery of iron rod and gold ornaments along with a last-seen-together statement provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to deny bail.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; liberty to renew prayer granted post disposal.
What the court decided
6.ABA366_2015.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 366 OF 2015
Rohit Kumar Patil Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
... Applicant ... Respondent
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State. I.O. Mr. Mohd. Rafiq Hasan Shaikh, PSI, Tasgaon Police Station, Sangli present.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : JULY 28, 2015
P.C.:
This is the second Bail Application. The first Bail Application No. 1253 of 2014 was disposed of as withdrawn on 30th October, 2014. The applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 302, 397, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 42 of 2014 registered with Tasgaon Police Station, Sangli.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where prosecution cites recovery panchnama and medical evidence including last seen together statement.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Rohit Kumar Patil
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
MRIDULA BHATKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court