In a criminal appeal, the High Court evaluated two dying declarations and the deceased's statement regarding poisoning and arson. The court analyzed the applicant's injuries, the husband's delay in seeking medical aid or filing an FIR, and concluded there was no case for bail. The application was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
rsk
11-APPA-228-19-doc.doc
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2019 IN
CIMINAL APPEAL NO.82 OF 2019
Santosh Basavraj Gaikwad
...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate for the applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 10/07/2019.
P.C.:
. Heard respective counsel. We find that apart from oral dying declaration there are two dying declarations at Exhibit 30 and Exhibit 45. The effort of applicant is to show inconsistencies in dying declarations.
rsk
11-APPA-228-19-doc.doc
2/2
(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)
(B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inconsistencies in the dying declarations are sufficient to grant bail to the applicant.
Whether the conduct of the husband implies a case for suicide rather than murder.
Whether a bail application should be allowed given the circumstantial evidence against the applicant.
Santosh Basavraj Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra
B. P. Dharmadikari
Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
