Yuvraj Nandkumar Magar v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment disposes of a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court rejected the bail plea, holding that confessions of co-accords recorded under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act are substantive evidence against the accused and do not require corroboration to sustain the application's rejection.
What did the court decide?
Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC rejected; Applicant to remain in custody.
What the court decided
17 BA 730-17=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 730 OF 2017
Mr. Yuvraj Magar
… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
… Respondent
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b Shradha Sawant for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2017
P.C.:
. This is an application for bail in C.R. No. I-314/2015 dated 16.01.2015 registered with Bharati Vidyapith Police Station, District Pune under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted when co-accused confessions under Section 18 of the MCOC Act clearly implicate the applicant as a member of the crime syndicate.
Whether a conviction based on confessions recorded under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act requires independent corroboration from other evidence.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mr. Yuvraj Magar
- respondent
State of Maharashtra
Coram
A.S. GADKARI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court