High Court of Bombay dismissed a bail application filed by an accused convicted of murder. The court was not inclined to grant bail despite considering witness testimony and circumstantial evidence proving involvement in the crime.
Application for bail dismissed; sentence not suspended.
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.
17_appa_431_2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.431 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1017 OF 2013
Balaji @ Bala Gopal Sukunde
...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
...
Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedia, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED: 12th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J]:-
This is an application for bail filed by the aforesaid Applicant, who is an accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.723 of 2011 arising out of C.R. No.220 of 2011 registered at Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, for an offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Megha
1/4
17_appa_431_2016
Megha
2/4
17_appa_431_2016
only in the supplementary statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 (5) of the Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 has explained that the Applicant and the co-accused had threatened him not to disclose their names to anyone. He has further stated that on the date of the incident the Applicant had called on the cell phone of Rangeela and that he had answered the said call. This witness had stated that the Applicant had enquired about the condition of Rangeela and when he had told him that his condition was critical, Applicant had asked him whether anyone had seen the said incident. Thereafter the Applicant and the co-accused had come to the place of the incident and after confirming that Rangeela was dead, the Applicant had phoned his mother. The mother of the Applicant had told him to report to the police that some unknown persons had quarreled with Rangeela and assaulted him and ran away from the place of the incident. This witness has therefore, explained the circumstances under which he had lodged the report and hence, not disclosing the names of the Applicant and other co-accused in the FIR is not of much significance at this stage.
Megha
3/4
17_appa_431_2016
chest. The medical evidence prima facie corroborates the ocular version.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)
Megha
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused convicted of murder pending the substantive sentence.
Whether the sentencing in a murder case requires suspension to grant bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balaji @ Bala Gopal Sukunde
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