The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted anticipatory bail to two applicants convicted of murder, observing that prosecution witnesses failed to identify them or implicate them in the assault causing death.
Each applicant released on PR Bond of Rs. 35,000 with one or two sureties. Conditioned to report once a month.
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.
jdk 1 14.crappa.132.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2016 IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 1328 OF 2013
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ] At the instance of Panchavati ] Police Station ].. Respondent
Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari Advocate for Applicants Mrs. A.S. Pai A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 22, 2016
P.C.:
1 The applicants original accused nos. 3 and 4 have
been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The applicants are now seeking bail.
2 It is the prosecution case that on 28.6.2011 at 8.30
1 of 3
jdk 2 14.crappa.132.16.doc
p.m. the applicants along with other accused assaulted deceased Balu Bhandange with sharp weapons and caused his death.
3 According to the prosecution, there are five eye witnesses i.e. PW 1 Meerabai, PW 2 Pankaj, PW 3 Kiran, PW 7 Yogesh and PW 8 Sagar. According to the prosecution, PW 7 Yogesh is an injured witness. On perusal of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, it is seen that they are not eye witnesses to the incident. They have not implicated any of the applicants. As far as PW 7 Yogesh who is an injured witness is concerned, he has also not identified or named any of the applicants as having taken part in the incident of assault on Balu. As far as PW 8 Sagar who is the complainant in the present case is concerned, he has also not identified any of the applicants as having assaulted Balu. Looking to these facts, we are inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(1) Each of the applicants i.e. applicant no.1 Sagar Sudam Dighole and applicant no.2 - Suraj Omprakash Rajput be released on PR Bond of
2 of 3
jdk 3 14.crappa.132.16.doc
Rs.35,000/- each (Rs. thirty five thousand only) with
one or two sureties to make up the said amount.
(2) During the period that the applicants are on
bail, they shall report once in a month i.e. on first Monday to Panchavati Police Station, Nashik. (3) Application is allowed and is disposed of in above terms.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to applicants convicted under Section 302 IPC where prosecution witnesses failed to identify them.
Sagar Sudam Dighole
Suraj Omprakash Rajput
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja Prabhu Dessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
