Dismissed

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Jun 2016APPA/374/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application seeking bail, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea of the applicant-accused convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that prima facie, strong motive and sufficient circumstantial evidence warranted the rejection of the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected and dismissed.

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

appa.374.2016_30th June.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.418 OF 2016

¶5

Bhauji alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶9

Mrs.Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate appointed for the Applicant Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE: JUNE 30, 2016

¶12

ORAL ORDER (PER MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.):

¶13

The applicant-accused is convicted by judgment and order dated 21.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.294 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the applicant-accused has submitted that there is no eye witness. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is weak. There is no sufficient evidence to convict the accused for the offence of murder. It is submitted that the applicant is convicted on the basis of suspicion and, therefore, be granted bail.

¶15

1 / 2

¶16

appa.374.2016_30th June.doc

¶17

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She pointed out that there was a strong motive to eliminate Namdeo Jagtap, the deceased.

¶18

Read the evidence of Ramesh Namdeo Jagtap. The deceased reached at the spot of the incident immediately. On the point of motive, another witness i.e., PW8 Bhavrao Motirm Bahiram, deposed that there was a dispute on account of killing of a goat between the accused and the deceased. The post-mortem report discloses that pieces of brain were out and the skull was completely fractured. Prima facie, there are circumstantial evidence as there is evidence of recovery of blood stained wooden rod from the house of the applicant-accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The C.A. Report also goes against the applicantaccused. The spot panchanama shows that there is a trail of grain from the dead body towards the house of the accused. Considering these circumstances, it is not a case for grant of bail.

¶19

Hence, the application is rejected.

¶20

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶21

2 / 2

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde 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

Adam Gafoor Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Chintu Soman Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Baburao Vashinekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Tukaram Bharmu Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajkumar Rakesh Sahani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramzan Vazir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.