Dismissed

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2017APPA/6/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Mumbai, treating the applicant (original accused No. 1, wife of accused No. 2) as convicted under Section 302 IPC, found it was not a fit case to grant bail based on the gravity of the prosecution evidence involving burning and dying declarations. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

10. cri appa 6-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2013

¶5

Shobha Jahangir Shinde & Bhosale

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : JANUARY 16, 2017.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

The applicant - original accused No. 1 has been

¶18

convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The applicant is

¶19

now seeking bail.

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶21

10. cri appa 6-17.doc

¶22

The applicant is the wife of original accused No. 2 - Jahangir Srirang Shinde @ Bhosale. Deceased Lalita was the second wife of accused No. 2. At the time of the incident, Lalita was residing separately from Jahangir and Shobha i.e accused Nos. 2 and 1.

¶23

It is the prosecution case that on 20.1.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., both the accused poured kerosene on Lalita and set her on fire. There are two dying declarations on record. The first dying declaration is recorded by PW 4 Police Head Constable Burange. This dying declaration is at Exh. 26. In this dying declaration, Lalita has stated that accused No. 1 i.e the applicant poured kerosene on her and accused No. 2 i.e her husband set her on fire. This dying declaration is treated as F.I.R. There is another dying declaration i.e Exh. 23 which was recorded by PW 2 S.E.M. Shri Patil. This was recorded on 21.1.2011. In this dying declaration, Lalita has stated that both the accused persons poured kerosene on

¶24

her and set her on fire. In addition, the prosecution is relying

¶25

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶26

10. cri appa 6-17.doc

¶27

on the evidence of PW 1 Shinde and PW 3 Tanaji. Both these witnesses saw smoke coming out of the house of Lalita. At that time, they saw both the accused persons coming out of the house of Lalita and running away on motorcycle. In view of the evidence on record, we do not think this is a fit case to

¶28

grant bail to the applicant, hence, the application for bail is rejected.

¶29

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

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶31

3 of 3

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale 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

Raju @ Rajan Kartaiyya Harijan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shekhar Vilas Malekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad S. Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Yellappa Walawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahim Munawar Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra