This bail application from minors charged with murder and concealment of dead body was rejected by the High Court. The court found sufficient material in the police report and stated that the applicants do not deserve bail.
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.
Mhi
BA-1712-17.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1712 OF 2017
Suresh Ramchandra mali & Anr. ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, for the applicants. Mr.S.H.Yadav,APP, for the State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 13th December, 2017.
P.C. :
The applicants herein are arrested on 15.4.2016 in Crime No.100 of 2016 registered at Vaduj Police Station, Satara. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed against the applicants for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
am., the daughter of Baban Mali i.e. Santoshi lodged a missing report at
Vaduj Police Station contending therein that her father had gone to water
Mhi
BA-1712-17.doc
2
the agricultural land in the night and has not returned. The missing report
was lodged at about 9.03 a.m. On the same day at about 12.10 in the noon, Santoshi had informed the police that she suspects that her father has in all probabilities, met with homicidal death at the hands of Ramchandra Mali, Subhash Mali, Sadashiv Mali and Suresh Mali who happen to be the relatives. According to her, the motive for causing murder of Baban Mali was that there is a civil disute between the families. The police had then called upon the original accused No.1 to 3 and enquired with them. In the course of enquiry, the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 had admitted before the police that they have caused homicidal death of Baban Mali and had concealed his dead body at Chitali near Mohite Mali Canal. The three accused had led the police to the discovery of the dead body under Section 37 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Mhi
BA-1712-17.doc
3
in the land of one Jagannath More. On 13.4.2016 at about 5.30 a.m., he had
requested Chandrakant Sutar to inform that he was sleeping in his house in the intervening night. The statement of the witnesses is recoreded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. That the first information report is lodged by the son of deceased on 14.4.2016. In the course of investigation, the cellphone and tobacco pouch of the deceased were found at the spot. There is recovery of weapons at the hands of the accused persons.
Mhi
BA-1712-17.doc
4
made out under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code made out
against the accused/applicants and, therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The application is rejected.
prima facie in nature and restricted to an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial.
(SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail in an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Whether there is sufficient material against the accused to reject the bail application.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Ramchandra Mali & Anr.
State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
