Allowed

Yogesh Roshanlal Jayswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Apr 2019BA/153/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning murder and other offences, the High Court allowed the applicant's release after finding insufficient evidence linking him to the crime beyond incidental presence and vehicle usage, noting parity with a co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with surety of Rs. 50,000/- and requirement to mark presence at Dhule City Police Station.

Yogesh Roshanlal Jayswal Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

32.BA.153.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2019

¶4

Yogesh Roshanlal Jayswal ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b Mr. Shirodkar Ateet for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State, absent. Mr. M.G. Patil, A.P.P. for the State, present.

¶6

CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 22^nd APRIL, 2019.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1 Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Perused the copy of charge-sheet, affidavit in reply filed by the prosecution. This application is for bail by one of the accused involved in Crime No.150 of 2017 registered with Dhule City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 7 of MCOC Act. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the entire charge-sheet there is no involvement of applicant except for his vehicle passing from the toll plaza at a particular time when he is said to have transported co-accused in his vehicle. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that in fact applicant is a taxi driver by profession and as such he has carried co-accused exclusively

1/3

Waghmare

32.BA.153.19.doc

in his capacity as his passenger from Dhule to Nashik. Another aspect relied by prosecution is of applicant's accompanying co-accused when he is said to have visited one shop for buying clothes. It is contended that applicant’s accompanying co-accused as such, also does not establish his involvement in the present crime in any manner. It is, therefore, prayed that application be allowed.

¶13

2 Apart from merits application is also pressed on parity with coaccused Lakhan Jethe who is granted bail by this Court.

¶14

3 Perusal of documents filed in the charge-sheet would reveal that on 18.07.2017 at about 6.15 p.m., co-accused Rajendra Devre had caused death of one Guddya while he was sitting at a tea stall with complainant Shaikh Farukh. It also appears to be the case of prosecution that along with Rajendra Devre, co-accused Bheema, Dadu, brothers of Rajendra Devre, were also present at the time of incident and had inflicted injuries on Guddya.

¶15

4 The only incriminating material against applicant is statement of witnesses, of his being present with co-accused for purchasing clothes and the statement of shop owner who has stated that co-accused Lakhan, along with the others visited his shop for buying clothes to them, admittedly co-accused Lakhan is released on bail. Apart from above, there

2/3

Waghmare

32.BA.153.19.doc

appears no other material establishing applicant’s involvement in this crime.

¶20

4 Considering the nature of evidence available against the applicant, and since charge-sheet is already filed. The limited evidence

¶21

does not makes out the case to curtail the liberty of applicant. Application is, therefore, allowed as per order below:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) Applicant shall be released on bail in C.R. No.150 of 2017 registered with Dhule City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 7 of MCOC Act, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount;

¶24

(ii) While on bail, applicant shall mark his presence with Dhule City Police Station on the first day of each month between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. initially for a period of six months and thereafter, quarterly on the first day of each such month, pending trial.

¶25

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶26

3/3

¶27

Waghmare

Yogesh Roshanlal Jayswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Roshanlal Jayswal 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

Yogesh Pralhad Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Balbahadur Pradhan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Mohan Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant Mhasku Jamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Riddhima Vinit Grover Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vickysinh Didisingh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra