Allowed

Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018BA/306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale in a murder conspiracy case. The court noted the applicant was not the shooter, had no specific motive alleged, and the recovery of a koyta was not used in the offence. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on bail on execution of a PR Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties, subject to six specific conditions including attendance and non-tampering.

Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

ba.306.18.7.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2018

¶3

Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶4

Mr. Bhujang More for the Applicant

¶5

Mrs. A. A. Takalkar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

¶6

PI Mr. Suresh Kumar Raut from Manpada Police Station is present

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. TUESDAY, 3rd APRIL, 2018

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

By this application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-645 of 2016 registered with the Manpada Police Station, Dombivali, Thane, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 120 (b), 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

1/4

SQ Pathan

ba.306.18.7.doc

Perused the charge-sheet. According to the prosecution, all the accused had conspired to kill the complainant-Amit Patil and pursuant to the said conspiracy, some of the accused had gone near the complainant's house on 21^st December, 2016 at about 2:15 p.m. and had shot Vicky @ Vicky Omprakash Sharma (complainant's friend), who was standing behind the car, thinking that the said Vicky was the complainant. Admittedly, the applicant is not the assailant nor is it the prosecution case, that the applicant was present at the spot, when Vicky was fired at. No motive is also alleged as against the applicant. The only allegation as against the applicant is, that he was in touch on his mobile with the assailants prior to the incident and at the time of the incident. Although there is recovery of a koyta at the instance of the applicant, admittedly, the said koyta was not used in the commission of the offence.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid material qua the applicant, the application is allowed and the applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions :

2/4

SQ Pathan

ba.306.18.7.doc

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the

¶21

sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the

¶23

first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., till the conclusion of the trial;

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or

¶25

contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and

¶27

mobile contact number 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;

¶28

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

3/4

SQ Pathan

ba.306.18.7.doc

(vi) The applicant shall file an undertaking in the trial Court

¶33

with regard to clauses (ii) to (v), within two weeks of his release;

¶34

(vii) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the trial Court or in reporting to the Investigating Officer and if there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the applicant's bail.

¶35

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

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.

¶37

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶39

4/4

¶40

SQ Pathan

Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Pandurang Sonawale 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

Saddam Asalam Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagesh Hanumant Dhangar @ Kotari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meraj Ashraf Abdul Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Vishwanath Jha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dheeraj Umashankar Shahu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Assuddin Khurshid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra