Allowed

Dayanand Gopinath Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Aug 2019APPA/706/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) granted bail to applicants challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019, noting that other co-accused had already been released on bail and addressing discrepancies in witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with local solvent sureties; substantive sentence suspended; conditions include furnishing address, reporting to the Trial Court, and submitting a report of no

Dayanand Gopinath Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Rane 1 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 706 OF 2019

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2019

¶7

Dayanand Gopinath Shinde

¶8

and anr. … ..Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra … .Respondent

¶9

****

¶10

Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, Mr. Hrishi Ghorpade, Advocate
for the applicants.

¶11

Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the respondent-State.

¶12

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, &

¶13

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶14

Thursday, 22nd August, 2019.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1. Original Accused no.5-Sanjay and accused

¶17

no.7-Dayanand are seeking bail on the ground of

¶18

Rane 2 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶19

parity. By order dated 31st January, 2019, one

¶20

Rajesh-accused no.2 was given bail by this Court.
Then on 28th February 2019, accused no.6-Shekhar has
been given bail. On 16th April 2019, accused no.3-

¶21

Rupesh and on 4th July 2019, accused no.4-Datta have
been enlarged on bail.

¶22

2. Contention of learned Counsel for

¶23

applicants is, case of applicants, Sanjay and
Dayanand is not different. He submits that, at
earliest possible opportunity, P.W.1 has not
disclosed identity of accused persons to police.

¶24

3. Learned APP has submitted that, P.W. Amol
who is injured witness, as also, an independent
person, P.W.2-Jeetendra have named accused
persons. Our attention is also drawn to inquest
panchanama to show that P.W.1, then, has disclosed
that assailants were from his area only.

¶25

Rane

¶26

3 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶27

4. The depositions of P.W.1, injured witness-

¶28

Amol and that of P.W.2-Jeetendra is slightly
contrary. He states that, accused nos.1 and 2 came
on Yahama Motorcycle while accused nos.3 to 7 wsere
occupying Esteem Car. Thus, the present applicants
were in a car. P.W.2 who has been examined as an eye-
witness states that, accused no.7-Dayanand arrived
in Esteem Car while accused no.5-Sanjay was on
Motorcycle. Inquest Panchanama mentions disclosure
to Police by P.W.1 that some boys from his locality
attacked his brother, deceased Suresh with sharp
weapons.

¶29

5. Learned APP is right in urging that, this

¶30

statement recorded in Inquest Panchanama does not
imply that Amol was not knowing the names of
assailants.

¶31

6. However, inconsistent material (supra)

¶32

Rane 4 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶33

and other evidence has been looked into initially on

¶34

28th February, 2019 and thereafter others have also

¶35

been released on bail. The applicants have also put

¶36

in about ten years in prison.

¶37

7. In this situation, we are inclined to

¶38

release the applicants on bail on following terms

¶39

and conditions :

¶40

i) The substantive sentence imposed upon

¶41

the applicants- Dayanand Gopinath Shinde
and Sanjay Siddaram Kamble the impugned
Judgment and order dated 9/11/2012 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

¶42

Sessions Case No.703/2010 shall stand
suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal and the applicants shall be enlarged
on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two

¶43

Rane

¶44

5 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶45

local solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶46

ii) The bail is granted subject to the
condition that the applicants will
furnish detailed address of their place
of residence where they propose to reside
after they are enlarged on bail and
contact telephone/Cell number to the
concerned Jail Superintendent.

¶47

iii) The bail is granted subject to
condition of the applicants reporting to
the concerned Trial Court at 11.00 a.m.
on first Monday of every January and July
of every calender year till the disposal
of appeal.

¶48

iv) If the applicants fail to report to

¶49

Rane

¶50

6 / 6 APPA-706-2019 (SR.9) 22.8.2019

¶51

the Trial Court as aforesaid, the Trial
Court shall immediately submit a report
to that effect to the Registrar
(Judicial-I) of this Court who shall
immediately place the report before the
concerned Court.

¶52

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Dayanand Gopinath Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand Gopinath Shinde and Anr. 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

Ravi Mangal Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Ambadas Maruti Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudhir Aatmaram Bhoir Vs Gurukul Grand Union School , through Its Chairman and Ors.

Sandeep Girdharilal Jain Brother of Detenu Manoj Girdharilal Jain Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors.

Aamil Noor Mohammed Fruitwala Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Kulsum Shoeb Zarodarwala Vs the Union of India and Ors.