Allowed

Shivaji Shankarro Patankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jul 2018APPA/330/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay CRMJ suspended the sentence and granted bail to an appellant convicted for murder under IPC 302. The court allowed the bail application citing lacunae in the identification parade and deemed the applicant had a good case for trial on merits. Intervener applications were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicant released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.15,000/- with sureties.

Shivaji Shankarro Patankar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Balaji Govindrao Panchal

¶2

Digitally signed by Balaji Govindrao Panchal Date: 2018.07.13 13:00:49 +0530

¶3

(915)-APPA-138-18.doc . 1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2018 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82 OF 2018

¶7

Riyaz Husain Nadaf ..Applicant (Accused No.3) Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶8

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2018

¶9

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147 OF 2018

¶11

Shivaji Shankarrao Patankar ..Applicant (Intervener) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Fujel Ahamadmiya Kazi ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

¶12

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82 OF 2018

¶13

Shivaji Shankarrao Patankar ..Applicant (Intervener) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Riyaz Husain Nadaf ..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶14

BGP.

¶15

(915)-APPA-138-18.doc . 2

¶16

Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar a/w Mr. M. N. Devkule, Advocate for the Applicant in APPA No.138 of 2018.

¶17

Mr. Ganesh H. Mohite, Advocate for the Applicants in APPA No.330 of 2018 and APPA No.334 of 2018.

¶18

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 12^th JULY, 2018

¶19

P.C.

¶20

1] This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶21

grant of bail during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶22

2] Heard Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the Applicant, Mr. Ajay

¶23

Patil, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ganesh H. Mohite for the original complainant.

¶24

3] The Applicant alongwith two other accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) for committing murder of Abhijeet Shivaji Patankar

¶25

4] The prosecution case is that the Accused No.1 – Rony @ Muin Mohamad Yusuf Kazi @ Moin and the deceased Abhijeet Patankar were pretending themselves to be builders and extorting BGP.

¶26

(915)-APPA-138-18.doc . 3

¶27

amount from other persons. It is the prosecution case that they used to distribute said extorted amount among themselves.

¶28

5] It is further the prosecution case that on account of distribution of such extorted amount, there was dispute between the deceased and the Accused. As a result of which, Accused No.1 – Rony @ Muin Mohamad Yusuf Kazi @ Moin assaulted the deceased with firearm.

¶29

6] The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The main evidence is that of last seen by the PW-14 – Akshay.

¶30

7] The role attributed to the present accused is that of accompanying main accused i.e. Accused No.1 – Rony @ Muin Mohamad Yusuf Kazi @ Moin. PW-14 – Akshay does not personally know the present Applicant. He has been identified by him in the identification parade. The evidence of PW-13 – the Executive Magistrate, namely Mohan Sawant who has conducted the identification parade would reveal that the identification parade was full of lacunae. He has admitted that the dummies were kept in row by the Police. He has further admitted that though the

¶31

BGP.

¶32

(915)-APPA-138-18.doc . 4

¶33

Applicant was wearing spectacle, no other dummies were wearing spectacles. He has further admitted that dummies were five to ten years older than the accused and they were 14 in persons including accused.

¶34

8] In that view of the matter, we find that the Applicant has good case on merits. The application is allowed. The order of sentence is suspended. The Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶35

9] Criminal Application No.330 2018 and Criminal Application No.334 of 2018 for intervention are allowed and disposed of.

¶36

[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

¶37

BGP.

Shivaji Shankarro Patankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Shankarro Patankar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda Manku Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarjya @ Sarjerao Dasharath Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manish Naresh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Riyaz Husain Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Shankarrao Patankar Vs the State of Maharashtra