Allowed

Rahul Jalandar Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2019APPA/1023/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed bail applications by two co-accused convicted for sections 324/302 IPC, ordering release on identical stringent terms and conditions as granted to a fourth accused in a prior related order.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one or two sureties, suspension of life sentence, prohibition on entering Ichalkaranji area, and reporting conditions imposed.

Rahul Jalandar Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

appln1023-1027.doc

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.701 OF 2017

¶6

Rahul Jalandar Ubale
vs.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1027 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.699 OF 2017

¶11

Nitin Bandu Burande...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary Advocate appointed and Ms
Payashi for the applicant in both applications
Mr.Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent No.1-State
Mr.Yogesh Prakash Morbale for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶13

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 9, 2019

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1Criminal Application No.1023 of 2018 is by the
accused No.2 and Criminal Application No.1027 of
2018 is by the accused No.3. The applicants along
with other two co-accused have been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 324 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code and 302 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants
have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
There is a remark of the Registry that the fine

¶16

2 appln1023-1027.doc

¶17

imposed on the applicants has been deposited.

¶18

2The learned counsel for the applicants relied
upon the order dated 4th June 2018 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Application
No.183 of 2018 which is an application filed by the
Accused No.4. For the reasons recorded in the said
order, the Accused No.4 was ordered to be enlarged
on bail pending the final disposal of his appeal on
the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶19

3The submission of the learned counsel for the
applicants in support of their applications is that
the role attributed to the Accused No.4 is no
different from the role attributed to the present
applicants. The learned APP on a query made by the
Court accepted that there is no material available
against these two applicants in addition to the
material evidence against the accused No.4. He,
however, submitted that an offence has been
committed by the applicant in Criminal Application
No.1023 of 2018 while he was released on bail in
connection with another offence. The learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the
applicants have approached their neighbour for
settlement and the accused No.1 is found wandering
around the residence of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶20

4We have considered the submissions. Paragraph 2
of the order dated 4th June 2018 in Criminal
Application No.183 of 2018 reads thus:

¶21

appln1023-1027.doc

¶22

¶23

“2.It is the prosecution case that the
applicant along with other accused assaulted
Rajeshil Gursale who was the husband of
P.W.No.16 Laxmi Gursale. Laxmi Gursale is the
first informant and according to the
prosecution, she is an eye witness to the
incident and she is also an injured witness,
however, on going through the evidence, it is
noticed that P.W.No.16 Laxmi Gursale has not
supported the prosecution case. She has been
declared hostile. So also the other eye
witnesses i.e P.W.No.11 Mangal, P.W.No.12
Vaishali, P.W.No.13 Vijay, P.W.No.14 Sanjay
and P.W.No.15 Kiran have all turned hostile.
According to the prosecution, there is
recovery of certain articles at the instance
of of the applicant. However, it is noticed
that panch witnesses have also turned
hostile. Looking to the evidence on record,
prima facie, we do not find any cogent,
convincing and reliable material which
implicates the applicant. In this view of the
matter, we are inclined to grant bail to the
applicant, hence the following order is
passed:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1) Applicant-Riyaj Dastagir Shaikh to be
released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rs.one lakh only) with one or two sureties
to make up the said amount;

¶26

4 appln1023-1027.doc

¶27

2) The applicant shall not enter into
Ichalkaranji area till further orders;
3) Before being released on bail, the
applicant shall intimate the address at
which, he will reside during the period that
he is on bail;

¶28

4) The applicant shall report to the nearest
police station to that address once in a week
i.e on the first Monday of every week;

¶29

5)Application is allowed and is disposed of
in above terms.”

¶30

5The Division Bench has imposed stringent
conditions by fixing the bail amount at Rs.1 lakh
and by imposing other conditions including the
condition of not entering the area of Ichalkaranji.
As case of these two applicants is no different,
they are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same
terms and conditions.

¶31

6 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶32

(I)Pending the final disposal of Appeal
Nos.701 of 2017 and 699 of 2017 respectively
sentence imposed on the applicant-Rahul
Jalandar Ubale in Application No.1023 of 2018
and the applicant-Nitin Bandu Burande in
Application No.1027 of 2018 (accused Nos.2 and
3) shall stand suspended;

¶33

(II)Both the applicants shall be enlarged on
bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh

¶34

5 appln1023-1027.doc

¶35

only) each with one or two sureties to make up
the said amount;

¶36

(III) Both the applicants shall not enter Ichalkaranji area till further orders;

¶37

(IV) Before release on bail, both the applicants shall intimate the addresses at which they will be residing during the pendency of the appeals to the Officer Incharge of the concerned Police station in which the offence is registered. They shall also communicate the contact telephone number/cell number to the said Officer;

¶38

(V) The applicants shall report to the nearest police station of their respective places of residence on first Monday of every week;

¶39

(VI) Applications are allowed on above terms.

¶40

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Rahul Jalandar Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jalandar Ubale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Saikumar Ambaji Kandikonda

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Premchand Angre

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ayub Raheman Patel and Ors.

Rachana Vilas Natu Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Addl. Chief Secretary, (Services) Gen. Admin. Dept. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak Prasadsing Thapa and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Saidu Whatkar