This court considered a bail application under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court rejected the application due to the existence of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained axe and clothes at the applicant's instance against a background of no eyewitness and no C.A. Report.
Bail application 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.
Sherla V.
ba.647.2015_16.doc
BAIL APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2015
Maruti Ramdas Datir ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.P.G. Sarda for the Applicant Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2015
P.C.:
1 / 3
ba.647.2015_16.doc
on his body. Thereafter, sections 302 and 201 were added in her missing complaint.
2 / 3
ba.647.2015_16.doc
applicant/accused Maruti and that he would return in 10 minutes. Though he was supposed to return in 10 minutes, he did not come home and then he was found missing. Thereafter, the body was found in the canal. There were cut injuries.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of artefacts.
Whether the prosecution has provided prima facie evidence against the applicant under sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Maruti Ramdas Datir
The State of Maharashtra
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
