Allowed

Babasaheb Arun Thite v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jun 2017BA/643/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding murder and other offences, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail, noting that no overt act of assault was attributed to him based on the evidence regarding the events of the incident.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail on executing PR Bond in Rs.25,000/- with sureties and complying with specific conditions.

Babasaheb Arun Thite Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

BA 643-17.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2017

¶5

Babasaheb Arun Thite .Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.U.Nikam i/b. Mr.A.Satpute, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.H.Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶9

DATE : 05.06.2017

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this Application, the Applicant seeks his

¶13

enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.564 of 2016 registered with the Shikrapur Police Station, District – Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 504,

¶14

506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that no

¶16

overt act has been attributed to the Applicant. He submitted that

¶17

according to the Complainant – Smt. Lata Thite, the Applicant came with co-accused – Vaijnath at around 10.30 p.m. and that it

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

BA 643-17.doc

¶20

is co-accused – Vaijnath who entered the house, removed the axe from his shirt and assaulted her husband – Sanjay.

¶21

Learned APP does not dispute the fact that no overt

¶22

act has been attributed to the Applicant in the assault of Sanjay.

¶23

Perused the papers.

¶24

The incident in question has taken place on

¶25

31.08.2016 at about 10.30 p.m.. According to the Complainant – Smt. Lata Thite, the Applicant and co-accused – Vaijnath came to their residence at about 10.30 p.m.to clarify whether an amount of Rs.700/- was paid by Vaijnath to the Applicant. According to the Complainant, co-accused – Vaijnath entered the house, removed the axe from his shirt and assaulted her husband – Sanjay, who was sleeping. She has further stated that the Applicant was standing outside in the courtyard of the house and that she and the Applicant took the deceased to the Government

¶26

Hospital. A perusal of the FIR shows that it was co-accused – Vaijnath, who assaulted the deceased – Sanjay. No overt act has been attributed to the Applicant in the assault on Sanjay.

¶27

2 of 4

¶28

BA 643-17.doc

¶29

7. Considering the aforesaid, the Application is allowed

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

like amount;

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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 Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶38

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

¶39

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the

3 of 4

BA 643-17.doc

Applicant's bail.

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and

¶44

is accordingly disposed of.

¶45

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.

¶46

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶47

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶48

4 of 4

Babasaheb Arun Thite v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Arun Thite 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.

Sudarshan Bandu Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Arjun Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra