Allowed

Shubham Rajendra Gedam (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017BA/842/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder charges under the IPC, the High Court observed that the case relies on circumstantial evidence and the trial is delayed. Finding that sections 302, 201, and 315 charges do not preclude bail and noting the applicant's confinement, the Court ordered his release on bail with conditions including weekly police appearances.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, with a condition to attend police station once a week.

Shubham Rajendra Gedam (in Jail) Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ba842.17 23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.842 OF 2017

¶5

Shubham Rajendra Gedam

¶6

..vs..

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO PS Nagbhid, Tahsil Chandrapur District Chandrapur

¶8

....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri M.N. Ali, Counsel for the applicant. Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶10

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.

¶11

1. The applicant is arrested on 5.5.2017 in connection with Crime No.137 of 2016 registered with Police Station Nagbhid, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 315 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2. The investigating officer has already completed his entire investigation and the final report is filed before the Court of law.

¶13

3. It is informed to the Court by learned counsel for the applicant as well as by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that though the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, till today the charge is not framed and there is no possibility of taking the Trial in near future.

¶14

4. Deceased is one Sushma. Even, according to the prosecution, entire case of the prosecution is based on

.....2/-

ba842.17 23

circumstancial evidence. The prosecution has filed its histopathology report on record. As per learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.Y. Ghurde for the State, prima facie from the said report, for decision of this bail application only it cannot be pressed into service.

¶19

5. The prosecution is relying on the circumstances such as (i) noticing the presence of the applicant near the heap of weed from where ultimately the dead body of Sushma was retrieved and (ii) the injury on the applicant's hand and CallDetailed-Report.

¶20

Insofar as first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying upon the statement of Gajanan which is recorded after a period of 2 days after the body was found. Even according to the prosecution case, there was love in between applicant and deceased, in the light of same at least for decision of this application for bail much importance cannot be attached to CDR reports. Further, insofar as injury to the hand of applicant, it is open to him to offer explanation when he will be examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Since the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the investigation, in respect of each of circumstances, is already over and even according to the prosecution, when there is a least possibility of taking the Trial for its decision in near future, I am of the view that the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 5.5.2017, can be

.....3/-

ba842.17 23

released on bail by imposing certain conditions on him. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) The criminal application is allowed.

¶27

ii) The applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties of the like amount in connection with Crime No.137 of 2016 registered with Police Station Nagbhid, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 315 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

iii) The applicant shall attend the police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday in between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., till culmination of the Trial.

¶29

iv) The observations made in this order are only of decision of this application.

¶30

v) With this, the criminal application is disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

!! BRW !!

¶33

...../-

Shubham Rajendra Gedam (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Rajendra Gedam (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur

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

Rajesh Badrinath Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur and Another

Vinod S/O. Khushal Khewale (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer P.S. Gadchiroli Dist. Gadchiroli

Sau. Vijaya @ Poonam Swapnil Katiyar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Civil Lines Akola and Others

Devayya S/O.Rangaiah Kandukuri and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Police Station Majri (Kalari) Tah. Bhadrawati Dist. Nagpur

Lavit S/O. Badal Khanjar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Inspector Police Station Ballarshah Dist. Chandrapur

Dilip S/O. Shamsundar Kanjar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Inspector Police Station Ramnagar Dist. Chandrapur