Allowed

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jun 2017BA/552/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant accused of murder. The court found no material connecting the applicant to the offence as the prosecution case relied solely on circumstantial evidence lacking last seen evidence, body recovery, or call detail records. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and complying with specified conditions regarding attendance and cooperation with the trial.

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

BA 552-17.doc

¶2

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2017

¶4

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad .Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶7

Mr.J.D.Mane, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.H.Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶9

DATE : 05.06.2017

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.160 of 2016 registered with the Solapur Taluka Police Station, District – Solapur, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is no material to connect the Applicant with the alleged offence.

¶14

Perused the papers.

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

BA 552-17.doc

¶17

Deceased Jyoti went missing from home on

¶18

13.04.2016. According to Jyoti's mother's statement, Jyoti disclosed that she was going with her madam to Solapur. She has further stated that at about 7.30 p.m. Jyoti called and disclosed to her mother that she was at Kontam Chowk alongwith her madam. After that Jyoti never called and she could not be contacted. On 16.04.2016, one Rameshwar Koshti informed the police that a dead body (skeleton) was found in his field. On 18.05.2016, Jyoti's mother raised suspicion as against the Applicant. According to Jyoti's mother, there was a love affair between the Applicant and her daughter, Jyoti and that 1 ½ years prior to the incident, Jyoti had attempted to commit suicide. However, Jyoti had not disclosed the reason for the same. According to Jyoti's mother, she had learnt that there was an affair between the Applicant and Jyoti and the Applicant was not getting married to her. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence of last seen, recovery and CDR as against the Applicant. The CDR records annexed to the charge-sheet only show that the Applicant was in touch with the deceased upto 31.03.2016.

¶19

Learned APP has not been able to point out any

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

BA 552-17.doc

¶22

material to show the Applicant's complicity in the said crime.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid, the Application is allowed

¶24

and the Applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms & conditions:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR

¶27

Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶28

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till the conclusion of the trial;

¶29

(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶30

(iv) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the

¶31

Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶32

(v) The Applicant to cooperate with the conduct of the trial;

¶33

3 of 4

¶34

BA 552-17.doc

¶35

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶36

the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the applicant's bail.

¶37

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶39

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶40

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶41

4 of 4

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahadev Yeshwant Ballal and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahadev Yeshwant Ballal and Anr.

Ramchandra Vitthal Jankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Riyaz Ahmed S/O Nisar Ahmed Vs Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.

Babasaheb Arun Thite Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Arjun Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra