Allowed

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2016APPLN/4395/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court criminal application for bail in a highway decoity case. Court allowed bail after finding recovery of amount insufficient to infer complicity without other incriminating evidence, holding detention unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing surety in like amount with a separate surety.

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 ) cria4395.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4395 OF 2016

¶4

Balasaheb s/o. Kundlik Gitte..Applicant
Age. 23 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Chandarpur, Tq. Parli Vaijnath,
Dist. Beed.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Mr.T.M. Venjane, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.P. Sonpawale, APP for respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J.
DATED :26.10.2016

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.The applicant/accused in Crime No. 51 of 2015
registered with Kingaon Police Station, Tal. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur, for offence punishable under sections 397,
395, 323, 504, 506, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and
under sections 3,35 of the Arms Act, by this application,
is seeking his release on bail after filing of the
charge-sheet.

¶12

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well
as learned A.P.P.

¶13

3.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application by
contending that there is recovery of amount at the
instance of present applicant. He further argued that
considering the fact that this is case of highway
decoity, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶14

4.Perused the charge-sheet. The F.I.R. of the
crime is lodged by a cleaner of truck, named, Musa Gafar
Pathan. According to the prosecution case, Wajid Shaikh -
driver and Musa Gafar Pathan - cleaner were proceeding by
truck towards Patoda village. Their truck was intercepted
by a car and few persons alighted from the car. Those
decoits assaulted driver Wajid Shaikh, took out an amount
of Rs.15,000/- from him. They also assaulted informant –
Musa Garaf Pathan and robbed him of Rs.3000/- as well as
his cell phone of Micromax company.

¶15

5.Evidence available against the present applicant
is recovery under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
on the basis of confessional statement of the present
applicant. On 23.01.2015, an amount of Rs.2000/- was
recovered from the house of the present applicant at his
instance. Except this, there is nothing incriminating
against present applicant, so as to infer his complicity
in the crime in question.

¶16

( 3 ) cria4395.16

¶17

6.Considering the nature of evidence available
against the applicant, his pre-trial detention is not
warranted. Hence, the order :-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

i)The application is allowed.

¶20

ii)Applicant/accused – Balasaheb s/o. Kundlik
Gitte Crime No.51 of 2015 registered with
Kingaon Police Station, Tal. Ahmedpur, Dist.
Latur, for offence punishable under sections
397, 395, 323, 504, 506, 341 of the Indian Penal
Code and under sections 3,35 of the Arms Act, be
released on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.
25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] and on
furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶21

iii)As a condition of this Order, the
applicant shall not extend any threat,
inducement or promise to the persons
acquainted with the facts of the accusation
so as to dissuade them from disclosing the same
either to the police or the Court.

¶22

iv)The applicant shall not tamper the
evidence of the prosecution.

¶23

v)The applicant to co-operate the trial Court
in the expeditious disposal of trial against
him.

¶24

snk/2016/OCT16/ cria4395.16

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte 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

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Dagdu Bhokre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akashay S/O Rajanikant Makasare Vs the State of Maharashtra Q

Krishna Rupsing Rupsen Rathod. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Sujit @ Nana Bharat Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Sou. Sunita Vijaya Karhale. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.