Dismissed

Firoj Akbar Shaikh and Other v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016APPLN/1907/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2016, the High Court at Aurangabad, Bench Ahmadnagar, rejected an application for bail by four appellants against the State. Upholding the trial court's finding of a complete chain of circumstances, the bench held that no case was made out for granting bail and the matter is remanded for recording of papers for the appeal. Single judge who decided the case is Pandit a

What did the court decide?

Application for bail stands rejected.

Firoj Akbar Shaikh and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1907.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2016 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2016

¶6

1. Firoj Akbar Shaikh Age: 36 years, Occu: Business

¶7

2. Jyoti Ganpat Shingade Age: 22 yrs. Occu.Household.

¶8

3. Raju Bhausaheb Dive Age: 22 yrs. Occu.Labour work

¶9

4. Babasaheb Sabaji Bare Age: 29 yrs. Occu. Agriculture

¶10

All R/o. Varvandi, Tq. Rahuri
Dist. Ahmednagar. APPLICANTS
 (Orig.Accused)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

Through the Police Station Officer
Rahuri Police Station
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶14

 RESPONDENT

¶15

...

¶16

Mr.N.V.Gaware, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.S.B.Joshi, APP for respondent – State.

¶17

...

¶18

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶19

SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶20

Reserved on : 25.10.2016
 Pronounced on: 27.10.2016

¶21

1907.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

¶22

¶23

ORDER: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶24

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and the learned APP

¶25

appearing for the respondent – State.

¶26

2.The learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submit that the prosecution
case rests upon the circumstantial evidence.
The trial Court has not properly appreciated
that there is no chain of circumstance which
would lead to hypothesis that the applicants
are responsible for the death of Ganpat. It
is further submitted that the evidence of the
prosecutionwitnessessuffersfrom
improvements, omissions and contradictions
and the same deserves to be discarded. He
further invites our attention to the grounds
taken in the application and submits that the
appellants deserve to be released on bail.

¶27

3.On the other hand, the learned APP

¶28

1907.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

¶29

¶30

appearing for the respondent – State submits
that the appellants were not on bail during
the trial. The trial Court has properly
considered the entire evidence brought on
record and found that the prosecution has
established each circumstance firmly and
found chain of circumstance is complete which

¶31

leads to the only hypothesis of guilt of the
appellants.

¶32

4.We have heard the learned counsel

¶33

appearing for the appellants and the learned
APP appearing for the respondent – State.

¶34

With their able assistance, perused the

¶35

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
also other evidence and the findings recorded
by the trial Court. Upon careful perusal of

¶36

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

¶37

there is evidence of Subhash (PW-4), who
stated that in front of the office of

¶38

Hindustan Agro Co-operative Company Ltd., he
saw accused no.1 Firoj, accused no. 3 Raju

¶39

1907.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

¶40

¶41

and accused no.4 Babasaheb. They were discussing with each other and there was rope in the hands of Firoj. While passing through these persons from close distance, accused no.1 Firoj looked at this witness with anger. Rajkumar (PW-8) in his evidence has also stated the presence of accused nos.1, 3 and 4 on the date of incident in his Hotel and they left the Hotel on that day. There are also witnesses, who have deposed that the accused persons were seen in front of the house of Ganpat on the night of the incident. It is not desirable to assign the detail reasons on the basis of evidence, since the appeal filed by the appellants is pending. Suffice it to say that prima facie, the findings recorded by the trial Court are sustainable and appear to be in consonance with the evidence brought on record. No case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, the application for bail stands rejected.

¶42

¶43

1907.2016 Cri.Appln..odt

¶44

5.The Registry of this Court shall
send original record and proceedings to the
Registry of Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Upon
receiving the original record and proceedings
by the Registry of the Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar, the Registry of concerned Court
shall prepare the paper book and send it back
along with original record and proceedings,
as expeditiously as possible, and preferably
within three months from receipt of the
original record and proceedings.

¶45

6.After receiving the paper book and
the original record and proceedings, liberty
to mention for early hearing of appeal.

¶46

DDC

Firoj Akbar Shaikh and Other v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Akbar Shaikh and Other 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrimant Baburao Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrimant Baburao Devkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Guru Mahaling Guru Channabrao Shivacharya Maharaj and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Alias Papya S/O Ganeshrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ankush Bhimrao Jagtap and Ors.

Hanuman S/O Dattarao Karkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra