Anil Jagannath Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application under Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2017, the High Court rejected the request for bail. The applicant, convicted as an abettor for murder, argued flaws in eyewitness identification and injury discrepancies. The Court found the identification possible in open ground and the medical evidence consistent with the prosecution case.
What did the court decide?
Application for bail rejected; hearing of the appeal expedited.
What the court decided
1 APPA.493/2017-APEAL.290/2017(903)
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 493 OF 2017 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2017
Anil Jagannath Yadav Age 24 years, R/o. Row House No.3, Sai Row House, Upendra Nagar, CIDCO Nashik. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance Ambad Police Station, District: Nashik)
...Applicant
...Respondent
Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, 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. :
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for causing death by assault with a knife.
Whether the eyewitness testimony regarding the identification of the accused in moonlight is reliable.
Whether the medical evidence supports the prosecution case that multiple injuries could be caused with weapons.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Anil Jagannath Yadav
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court