Allowed

Santosh Yadav Sankhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2019APPA/850/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application was filed by an accused seeking bail, citing that the principal accused was already released on bail by this Court on 3rd May 2019. The Court, noting lack of specific evidence against the applicant, granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail after executing personal bond and furnishing details of two sureties subject to stipulated terms.

Santosh Yadav Sankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 appa-850.19.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.850 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1559 OF 2018

¶6

Santosh Yadav Sankhe … Applicant Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. S.V. Marwadi for the Applicant. Mr. Lokesh D. Zade for the Intervenor. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 1^st JULY, 2019.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 Application is moved by the accused no.2 pointing out that accused no.1 Samidha is already released on bail by this Court on 3^rd May 2019 and reasons then recorded hold good even in case of present applicant.

¶13

2 The learned APP as also the learned counsel for intervenor are strongly opposing grant of bail. They submit that affair between the accused no.1 and accused no.2 is already established and documents showing marriage between the two are already on record. This second marriage is during subsistence of marriage of accused no.1 with deceased.

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

2 appa-850.19.docx

¶16

Counsel for the intervenor has strongly relied upon deposition of PW12, lady residing in neighbourhood of present applicant.

¶17

3 Perusal of the order dated 3^rd May 2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.647 of 2019 shows that then this Court has taken note of the fact that conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. Though murder is claimed to have taken place in the residential house of deceased and accused no.1, there was no evidence to demonstrate that accused nos.1 and 2 were together in said house with deceased.

¶18

4 In application moved by accused no.2 those findings are attracted with full vigour. PW 12 neighbour of present applicant only points out a message communicated to accused no.1 through her by accused no.2 not to take any tension and to keep mum. The envelope handed over by accused no.2 to her containing documents certifying marriage between both the accused persons has also been brought on record through her evidence. The evidence at the most shows some motive. However, it does not bring on record participation of present applicant in the crime.

¶19

5 We are therefore inclined to grant bail to the present applicant on following terms and conditions :-

¶20

(i) He shall be released on bail after executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties in the like amount before the trial Court;

¶21

(ii) He shall on affidavit place the address at which he shall

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

3 appa-850.19.docx

¶24

always be available during pendency of these proceedings along with his contact numbers;

¶25

(iii) Identical details in relation to his sureties shall also be furnished;

¶26

(iv) He shall report to the Registrar/ Superintendent of the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai on first working Monday once in a period of two months during the pendency of these proceedings;

¶27

(v) Failure to so report shall automatically result in cancellation of his bail and the respondent – State shall be entitled to take him in custody;

¶28

(vi) An undertaking on above lines shall be filed in trial Court within two weeks after receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶29

(vii) Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶30

(SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶31

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

Santosh Yadav Sankhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav Sankhe 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

Ashok Dhondiram Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Peter Topannu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Noor Ahmed Mohammed Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Sudam Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunita Ganesh Patil @ Sunita Laxman Zavare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sikandar S/O Nijam Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra