Allowed

Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Feb 2017APPA/188/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Abdul Jabbar Maajid Shaikh, accused convicted of murder. Bail was ordered due to prosecution evidence discrepancies, including lack of FIR mention of the applicant and contradictions in the sole witness statement. Terms included a bail amount and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and to report to the police station.

Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

10. cri appa 188-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2017

¶5

Abdul Jabbar Maajid Shaikh

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances
Mr. Khan Fakruddin	Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. H.J. Dedia	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2017.

¶13

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The applicant - original accused No. 3 has been

¶16

convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC for causing the

¶17

death of Gopi Nadar. The applicant is now seeking bail.

¶18

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶19

10. cri appa 188-17.doc

¶20

It is the prosecution case that the applicant had caught

¶21

hold of Gopi Nadar and original accused No. 2 Naushad assaulted Gopi Nadar with bamboo. There is only one eye witness to the incident i.e PW 1 Venila Gopi Nadar who was the wife of the deceased. No doubt, in her examination-in-

¶22

chief, she has stated that accused No. 3 had caught hold of her husband and accused No. 2 was assaulting her husband

¶23

with bamboo, however, her cross-examination shows that she had not stated this fact in her FIR and in her further statement. She has admitted that she knew accused Nos. 2 and 3 prior to the incident and she knew their names even prior to the incident, however, no name of the applicant has been mentioned in the FIR. Looking to all these facts, we are inclined to grant bail to the applicant, hence, we proceed to

¶24

pass the following order:-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

i. The applicant - Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- [ Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only ] with one or two sureties to make up the said amount.

¶27

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶28

10. cri appa 188-17.doc

¶29

ii. The applicant shall report to Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai on 1st Monday of every alternate week

¶30

till disposal of the appeal.

¶31

iii. The application is allowed in the above terms.

¶32

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶33

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶34

3 of 3

Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jabbar Majid Shaikh 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

Ajay Ram Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Lahu Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bistappa Yallappa Bandargali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanmant Nagnath Surwase Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.

Shrikant Hanumant Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra