Dismissed

Maroti S/O. Mariba Gujalwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Aug 2016APPLN/3098/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against an order rejecting a bail application, the High Court perused the notes of evidence. Finding the lower court's findings consonant with prosecution evidence and considering the gravity of the established offence, the Court rejected the bail application and directed return of the record.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the application for bail. No case made out for grant of bail.

Maroti S/O. Mariba Gujalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

crap3098.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3098 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2016

¶5

Maroti s/o Mariba Gujalwad

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

.....

¶11

Shri S.D.Tawshikar, advocate h/f
ShriV.Y.Patil, advocate for the applicant
Shri D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent

¶12

.....

¶13

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
 AND

¶14

 SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.

¶15

 DATED: 30.08.2016

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the
applicant. He invites our attention to the
deposition of Dadarao (PW 3)) and submits that in
fact Dadarao (PW 3) did not witness the incident.

¶18

He submits that Dadarao (PW 3) was a chance

¶19

witness. He further submits that it is quite
unnatural that after noticing the incident Dadarao

¶20

(PW 3) would run away from the place of

¶21

2crap3098.16

¶22

occurrence. He further submits that on next day

¶23

Dadarao (PW 3) approached the President, Tanta
Mukti Committee. Therefore, he submits that the
evidence of Dadarao (PW 3) itself is not
trustworthy and no conviction could have been
based on the basis of his testimony. Therefore,
he submits that the application for bail deserves
to be allowed.

¶24

appearing for the respondent, relying upon the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the
medical officer submits that the evidence of
Dadarao (PW 3) gets corroborated in material
particulars from the evidence of medical officer.
Therefore, he submits that the application may be
rejected.

¶25

3.We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

applicant and the learned A.P.P. and with their
able assistance perused the notes of evidence.
The appellant was an under trial prisoner during

¶27

¶28

crap3098.16

¶29

trial. Prima facie, it appears that the findings
recorded by the Court below are in consonance with
the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
It is not desirable to elaborate on the evidence
in the appeal filed by the appellant. Suffice it
to say, considering the gravity of the offence
established against the appellant, no case is made
out for grant of bail. The application stands
rejected.

¶30

4.The Registry shall forthwith send the
record and proceedings back to the Registry of the
concerned Court. Upon receiving the record, the
concerned Court shall prepare the paper book and
send it to this Court.

¶31

5.Upon receipt of paper book, liberty to
mention for early hearing of appeal.

¶32

 (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶33

dbm/crap3098.16

Maroti S/O. Mariba Gujalwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroti S/O. Mariba Gujalwad 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

Fakroddin Gaibisab Jamadar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas S/O Manmath Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sau Vidyadevi Vijaysinh Deshmukh and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Radhakisan Jakhete and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh S/O Pandurang Gavande and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amrapali W/O Dipak Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.