Allowed

Shreekant Dhulappa Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Sept 2017BA/666/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court, noting prima facie insufficient evidence and the applicant's lack of antecedents, allowed his release on bail in a murder case involving conspirators.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, subject to appearance at the police station and trial court dates.

Shreekant Dhulappa Dhule Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

919 ba 666-17=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2017

¶4

Shreekant Dhulappa Dhule

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28^th SEPTEMBER, 2017

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in C.R. No. 121/2014 dated 17.03.2014 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, District Pune under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2 The Applicant is Accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. The name of the deceased is Mayur Naik. It is the prosecution case that Accused No.6 Shradha Mayur Naik was having extra marital affair with the Applicant, to which deceased Mayur Naik was an obstacle. With a view to remove the obstacle to their love affair, the Applicant hatched a conspiracy with Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and decided to kill Mayur Naik. That the said conspiracy was hatched in the restaurant namely Star Juice Center Hotel at Bidar, State of Karnataka. In pursuance to the said conspiracy, Accused Nos. 2 to 5 arrived at Pune and on 17.03.2014 and

1/4

Sneha Chavan

919 ba 666-17=.doc

committed murder of Mayur Naik by strangulation in his house. That with a view of screen evidence, the Applicant along with other accused persons took the dead body of deceased Mayur Naik on a two wheeler and threw it away in a dustbin at village Narhe. After noticing the dead body by the villagers, the said fact was informed to Shri. Milind Naik, i.e. the father of the Mayur and the present crime is thereafter, registered. During the course of investigation, the Applicant is arrested on 22.03.2014. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted charge-sheet.

¶19

3 Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and perused the charge-sheet. The prosecution has propounded in all three circumstances against the Applicant namely i) motive i.e. Applicant was having extra marital relations with Accused No.6 Shraddha, who was wife of deceased Mayur Naik, ii) Recovery of mobile phone of the deceased, iii) Applicant shown the place under a discovery panchanama, where the alleged conspiracy was hatched in the restaurant at Bidar in the State of Karnataka.

¶20

4 As far as the first circumstance of motive is concerned, the first informant himself has mentioned about the same in the report. As far as the second circumstance of recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased is concerned, the evidence on record prima facie is silent about its identity and/or the fact that the said mobile was in use of the deceased prior to his death. It is to be noted hear

2/4

Sneha Chavan

919 ba 666-17=.doc

that the said mobile phone was recovered without a sim card and prima facie, there is no connecting link to establish the fact that the said handset of the mobile was infact in use and possession of the deceased prior to his death. As far as the third circumstance of discovery of the place at the instance of Applicant, where it is alleged that conspiracy was hatched, it prima facie appears that the said circumstance is weak in nature. Thus, prima facie it appears that except strong motive which revolves around the Applicant, there is no material on record against the Applicant.

¶25

5 Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per his instructions Accused No.2 Raju Shinge, Accused No.3 Siddhu Gola, Accused No.5 Nagraj Mahalingpur and Accused No.6 Shraddha have already been released on bail by the Trial Court. He further submitted that the order granting bail to Shraddha is not made available to him by his client. However, it has been orally instructed to

¶26

him. As stated earlier, the Applicant is arrested on 22.03.2014. Since then, he is in jail. It is submitted that there are no antecedents at the discredit of applicant.

¶27

6 In view of the above, the Applicant can be released on bail.

¶28

Hence, the following order:-

¶29

i) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 121/2014 dated 17.03.2014 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, District Pune on his furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent local sureties in the like amount.

¶30

ii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall attend the Dattawadi

3/4

Sneha Chavan

919 ba 666-17=.doc

Police Station once in month i.e. on every 1^st Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

¶35

iii) The applicant shall also attend all dates before the Trial Court.

¶36

iv) Any two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid conditions, shall attract the provisions of cancellation of bail.

¶37

v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

vi) Before his release from jail, the Applicant shall provide documents of his residence where he is proposed to reside after his release from jail to the Investigating Officer.

¶39

vii) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶40

(A.S.GADKARI, J.)

¶41

4/4

¶42

Sneha Chavan

Shreekant Dhulappa Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreekant Dhulappa Dhule 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

Uday Construction Corporation and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagwan Prabhuappa Gunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonu @ Dnyneshwar Walunj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantaram Dada Katake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yuvraj Nandkumar Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Navnath Ramdas Tengale Vs the State of Maharashtra