In a criminal appeal and bail application, the High Court of Bombay rejected the bail plea of an applicant convicted of murder (Sections 302 and 307 IPC). The court rejected arguments regarding identification darkness, weapon consistency, and juvenile involvement as insufficient grounds for bail release.
Prayer for bail 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.
1 APPA.458/2017-APEAL.260/2017(6)
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2017 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2017
Prabhat Ramesh Adhav ...Applicant Age 19 years, /at: H. No.189/90, Upendra Nagar, CIDCO, Nashik.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance Ambad Police Station, District: Nashik)
...Respondent
Mr. Aniket U. Nikam i/b. Mr. Ashish Satpute, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2017
P.C. :
2. The applicant original accused No.1 has been convicted under
Sections 302 and 307 r.w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the
applicant is now seeking bail.
2 APPA.458/2017-APEAL.260/2017(6)
moonlight and as the applicant was known to the witness it would be
3 APPA.458/2017-APEAL.260/2017(6)
easily possible to identify the applicant / accused even in moonlight. Thus we find no merit in the submission that as it was dark it was not possible to identify the accused persons.
which particular part of the body each of the accused has assaulted. It is not necessary that a witness should state on which particular part of the body assault was made by which accused. Even if the witness states that the accused person has assaulted the deceased or the witness it would be sufficient.
both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted Yogesh with knives. It is submitted that only one injury which is consistent with knife was found on the body of the deceased Yogesh which shows that the entire prosecution case is false. We have perused the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Arun Pawar who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Yogesh. He has stated that he found contused lacerated would on left arm, three injuries on the back i.e. abrasions and one stab wound on
the right side of the chest. Looking to the number and nature of
4 APPA.458/2017-APEAL.260/2017(6)
injuries it cannot be said that the evidence of the injured witness is not reliable.
The third accused Rahul Khairnar was juvenile accused and he had received injuries in the incident. On the basis of this it was submitted that the genesis of the incident was suppressed, therefore, the entire story of the prosecution is doubtful. Reliance was placed on the medical certificate of Rahul Khairnar. We have perused the said certificate. It shows that he had sustained three injuries. However the injuries were simple in nature. The medical certificate shows that the
5 APPA.458/2017-APEAL.260/2017(6)
injuries were superficial injuries. The main point as far as this submission is concerned is that it does not appear that the medical certificate has been exhibited. In such case reliance cannot be placed at this stage on the said certificate. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this medical certificate can be relied upon, this certificate shows that the injuries sustained by Rahul Khairnar were simple and superficial in nature. It is also the prosecution case that Rahul Khairnar had assaulted P.W. No.1 Dinesh with a knife on the waist and left hand. It appears that while assaulting Dinesh superficial injuries were caused to Rahul Khairnar, hence we are not inclined to give any importance to the same.
The record shows that applicant has assaulted the deceased with common intention with deadly weapons and caused his death. In addition with common intention they have caused injuries to P.W. No.1 Dinesh. Looking to all these facts we are not inclined to allow the application. Hence, prayer for bail is rejected. However the hearing of the Appeal is expedited.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused convicted of murder and convicted under sections 302, 307 and 34 IPC.
Whether inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the identification of accused individuals justify release on bail.
Whether the suppression of the juvenile involvement indicates that the prosecution story is doubtful.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhat Ramesh Adhav
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
