Allowed

Rafik Babulal Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jul 2016APPA/401/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by an applicant convicted of murder alongside another principal accused. The High Court granted bail. Resolution based on uncertainty concerning which of two similarly named cousins actually struck the fatal blow. Note lacking firm identification witnesses for the fatal act.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a Police Record P.R. Bond in the sum of Rupees Thirty Thousand with one or two similar sureties.

Rafik Babulal Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

APPA401_2016.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 401 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2016

¶5

Rafiq Babulal Shaikh ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Ms. Nagma Tandon, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the respondent/State.

¶7

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: JULY 4, 2016

¶8

P.C. (Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)

¶9

This Application for bail is preferred by the applicant. By the judgment and order dated 4^th November, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. He is also convicted under section 120B of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year.

¶10

The incident of assault has taken place on 22^nd September, 2012 at about 7.30 p.m. and one Dayanand @ Deva Namdev Khandekar was assaulted by the accused with kicks, fists and stones while he was returning home. Thereafter Dayanand succumbed to the injuries when he was taken

1 / 3

APPA401_2016.doc

to the hospital.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in all 6 accused were tried and all are convicted for the offence of murder. She pointed out that name of original accused no.1 is Rafiq Babulal Shaikh and name of original accused no. 4 is Rafiq Ibrahim Shaikh are quiet same. Both the accused are of 20 to 25 years age group and are residents of Pawannagar at Bibvewadi, Pune. The learned counsel submitted that one Rafiq Shaikh has assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists, however, one Rafiq Shaikh along with Mazhar Shaikh picked up a big stone and hit on the head of the deceased, which was a fatal blow. She, therefore, submitted that actually which Rafiq Shaikh has assaulted the deceased with stone on his head is not clear and, hence, the applicant be given benefit of doubt and he be granted bail.

¶15

Learned APP while opposing the Bail Application has pointed out that accused no. 4-Rafiq Ibrahim Shaikh @ Billa and the present applicant-Rafiq Babulal Shaikh was the one who lifted the stone and hit on the head of the deceased and due to that assault, deceased collapsed. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for committing murder of the deceased and, therefore, the applicant is not to be granted bail.

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

APPA401_2016.doc

¶18

We have perused the relevant evidence of the witnesses. It is true that

¶19

there are two Rafiq Shaikh, i.e., original accused nos. 1 and 4 and in the evidence of the witness, it is mentioned that one Rafiq Shaikh along with Mazhar has assaulted deceased with stone on his head and the said blow was

¶20

fatal. However, we have not come across any evidence whether the witnesses have identified the accused Rafiq Shaikh as assailant, who gave fatal blow on the head. Moreover, both Rafiq's are of the age group of 20 to 25 years and they are residents of same locality. Their surnames are also same. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that this is a case wherein bail is to be granted. Therefore, we allow this Application and grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order:

¶21

(i) The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶22

(ii) During the period that the applicant is on bail, he should report to the concerned police station once in a month.

¶23

The Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶24

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

¶25

3 / 3

Rafik Babulal Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafik Babulal Shaikh 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

Tukaram Rau Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdulla Ahmed Aanarkadi Mutlib Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ritesh @ Karan Rashmikant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Macchindra Haridas Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nishan Singh Jaimal Singh Sohel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vitthal Sheshrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra