Allowed

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2016APPLN/829/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for enlargement on bail by a woman convicted of life imprisonment for murder. The court held that despite conviction, the accused had no active role in the fatal assault. Bail was allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail conditioned to furnish personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

Cr appn 829.16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.829 OF 2016

¶5

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60 OF 2016

¶6

Chhayabai w/o Pundlik Ingale Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶9

Mr.N.S. Ghanekar advocate for the applicant Mr.M.M. Nerlikar, APP for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 6^th APRIL, 2016.)

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1 Instant application is presented by accused No.2 for her enlargement on bail. The accused applicant along with her son were prosecuted for commission of offence of murder of the husband of accused No.2 and at conclusion of trial, are held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34, IPC and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.

¶13

2 Learned counsel appearing for applicant - original accused No.2 states that, the lady was on bail during the course of trial and there is no evidence that, she has abused the liberty granted to her.

¶14

3 On perusal of the Judgment as well as the record and

¶15

{2} Cr appn 829.16.odt

¶16

proceedings, it appears that, though the lady was stated to be present at the spot incident, there is no role attributed to her, in causing fatal injury to the deceased. Though the prosecution version discloses that, accused No.2 i.e. applicant No.1 was armed with an axe, however, there is no evidence forthcoming that she used it, for launching assault on deceased. The witnesses to the incident, according to the applicant, have not deposed about her involvement in commission of offence.

¶17

4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on noticing that, there is no finding as regards participation of the applicant-accused No.2 in the alleged crime and considering the fact that, the accused-applicant is a lady and was enlarged on bail during the course of trial, we deem it appropriate to consider the application for grant of bail favourably.

¶18

5 The application is thus allowed.

¶19

6 The applicant, who has been convicted & sentenced in Sessions case No.184/2010 be released on bail on condition of furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

¶20

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶21

vbd

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale 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

Ashok S/O Pundlikrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Mehboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao S/O. Suryabhan Nage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mumtaz Shaikh Ismaile Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others