This bail application was rejected. The court held that after perusing eye witness evidence and considering the FIR, the case did not warrant bail, overriding the defence's reliance on a separate police note.
Bail application rejected; no relief granted.
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.
3.APPA135_2016
vidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2016 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2015
Bhausaheb Pandurang Garad ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane for the applicant.
Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM: MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
JUNE 23 , 2016.
ORAL ORDER: (Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
This Bail Application is preferred by the applicant/accused, who is
convicted by the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015 for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code
and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and so also under other
offences. The incident has taken place on 19th July, 2012.
applicant/accused has made out two points for granting bail to the
1 of 4
3.APPA135_2016
applicant/accused. He submitted that the applicant was on bail by an order
dated 24th June, 2013 of this Court in Criminal Application No. 877 of 2013. Secondly, he relied on two letters, i.e., one sent by the Investigating officer to the Medical Officer on 19th July, 2012 for conducting postmortem on the body of Samadhan and other is the note by P.S.I. to the Medical officer (Rural) Mohol alongwith the dead body sent for postmortem. The learned senior counsel submitted that in this note which was sent immediately along with the body of the deceased Dhanyakumar alias Samadhan, the police officer has mentioned that when the deceased was returning home on 19th July, 2012 at around 12 to 12.15 noon, Vithal Khandare, Hanmant Khandare and other 6 persons armed with sword, sattur and knife assaulted the deceased and he succumbed to injuries. The learned senior counsel submitted that the names of these two persons are neither appearing in the FIR nor they were made accused. However, as this note was immediately sent by the police officer and there is no explanation to that effect as to why the names of these two persons are appearing and forwarded to the Medical Officer, the case of the prosecution against involving the applicant/accused Bhausaheb Garad and others becomes doubtful. He submitted that considering these two aspects, the
2 of 4
3.APPA135_2016
applicant/accused is to be released on bail.
3 of 4
3.APPA135_2016
the deceased. We have considered the evidence of the eye witnesses who have attributed specific role. Our attention was drawn to the First Information Report which was registered at 13.15 hours on the same day, i.e., 19th July, 2012 and that is within an hour after the incident wherein names of the accused are mentioned as assailants and not of Vithal Khandare and Hanmant Khandare. Considering this scenario, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant/accused.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a convicted accused facing life imprisonment where the prosecution has tested witness evidence despite earlier reliance on police notes suggesting omissions in the FI
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhausaheb Pandurang Garad
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
