In bail application by accused convicted of murder and other offences, High Court rejected seeking due to severity of case with two deceased and three injured persons.
Bail application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
7. cri appa 120-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2017
Prabhakar Pandurang Mohite .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Mr. Amit P. Ghag Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 8, 2017.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 325 of IPC. The
applicant is now seeking bail.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
7. cri appa 120-17.doc
3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant along with
other accused on 10.3.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. assaulted Anant Jadhav and Tukaram Jadhav with axe both of whom died on account of the assault. In addition, the applicant has
caused injuries to the eye witnesses. There are three eye witnesses to the incident i.e PW 1 Shailesh, PW 2 Vasant and PW 3 Surendra.
that he heard sound of his father Anant. He saw the applicant assaulting his father Anant with axe on the forehead, chest and palm. The applicant also assaulted Shailesh. Thereafter, the applicant gave blow with axe on the leg of PW 2 Vasant. Shailesh went towards his uncle Vasant. At that time, PW 3 Surendra came there. The applicant then gave blow with axe on the right cheek and palm of right hand of Surendra. Then the applicant assaulted Shailesh's grandfather that is Tukaram with axe.
jfoanz vkacsjdj
2 of 4
7. cri appa 120-17.doc
had sustained 5 incised wounds and one contusion. The said injuries were on forehead, right arm, left thumb, middle back and on tempo parietal region of scalp i.e on the back side of the head. In addition, there was contusion on scapula. As far as PW 3 Surendra is concerned, he had received three incised wounds i.e one on back side, second on both scapular
region and third on clavicular region. In addition, he had two CLWs on the right cheek and right hand. As far as PW 2 Vasant is concerned, he had sustained two CLW on parieto occipital region. As far as deceased Anant is concerned, he had sustained multiple incised wounds. Deceased Tukaram had also sustained a number of injuries which were on the head and leg.
is a cross case lodged against PW 1 Shailesh, PW 2 Vasant
and PW 3 Surendra and the applicant is the complainant in
the said case. He pointed out that PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
7. cri appa 120-17.doc
have been convicted under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC in the said case. He submitted that this shows that the applicant was exercising his right of private defence. However, looking to the fact that there are two deceased and
three injured persons in this case who have sustained multiple injuries and looking to the evidence and nature of injuries on both sides, we do not think this is a fit case to
grant bail. Hence, the application is rejected.
[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 325 IPC.
Prabhakar Pandurang Mohite
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
