Allowed

Sanjay S/O Haribhau Kokare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2016APPLN/798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for enlargement of bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal against a conviction for murder. The Court noted the evidence was circumstantial and relied on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, rendering the chain of circumstances incomplete.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each for the like amount.

Sanjay S/O Haribhau Kokare and Anr. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

908 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 798 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL/46/2016

¶3

SANJAY S/O HARIBHAU KOKARE AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

¶4

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Gaware Niteen V. Mr. SP Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State.

¶5

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ. Dated: April 27, 2016

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Heard. This is an application for enlargement of the applicants/accused on bail. The applicants/accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and have sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The evidence led by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused is mainly of circumstantial nature. The motive for committing the murder is alleged to be illicit relations between the deceased and wife of accused no.1. The whole prosecution case rests upon extra-judicial confession made to PW 8 - Rajendra. It is alleged that after the incident, accused No.1 disclosed the happening of incident and details in respect of the commission of offence on mobile phone to PW no.8 - Rajendra. PW 8 has reason to state against the accused since there are civil disputes pending wherein mother of the accused is also impleaded as one of the defendants. The oral evidence of PW 8 does not find any corroboration from any other circumstance or oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It would be quite unsafe to place complete reliance on the evidence of PW 8 concerning

¶8

BDV

¶9

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

¶10

the extra-judicial confession of the accused No.1 given to him on mobile phone. According to us, the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to point out the accused as the only persons, who could have committed the alleged offence. The accused/applicants were on bail during the continuance of the trial and it has not been reported that they h ave misused their liberty

¶11

In the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicants have made out a case for their enlargement on bail during continuance of appeal. The application is thus allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail during pendency and disposal of the appeal on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each for the like amount. Bail before the trial court. The Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶12

( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶13

BDV

Sanjay S/O Haribhau Kokare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Haribhau Kokare and Anr. 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

Dr. Vandana W/O. Bibhishan Garje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Krushna S/O. Dajiba Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangita W/O Bhima Khedkar and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar S/O Uttamrao Sadavarte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh S/O. Bhikaji Gade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Najeeb Akhter S/O. Habib Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.