Allowed

Mukesh Anil Magar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Dec 2019BA/415/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Bombay allowed bail for the applicant accused of murder and culpable homicide. The court reasoned that no criminal antecedents existed against the applicant and that the prosecution evidence, including CCTV footage, was insufficient to establish his involvement in the crime.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- and one or more sureties; directed to report to the police station once a month.

Mukesh Anil Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2019)

1 of 4

Sajakali Jamadar

14-ba-415-19.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 415 OF 2019

Mukesh Anil Magar

...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Smt. Pooja Sejpal a/w Ms. Akshata B. Besai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the State-Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 16^th December, 2019

¶13

PC :

¶14

This is an application for bail in connection with C.R. No. I-153 of 2018 registered with Satpur Police Station, Dist. Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 323 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The First Information Report was lodged at the instance of Mrunal Bhalchandra Ghodake on 21^st May, 2018. It is mentioned that the Pramod Dangare had informed the witness that on the previous night he had accompanied Sunil Gangurde, Sudhir Bhalerao and Mukesh Magar (applicant). Harshal was found drinking liquor. He was picked up from the said place. He was made to sit on motorcycle and taken to Mahadevwadi. Sunil Gangurde, Sudhir Bhalerao and

¶16

Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4 14-ba-415-19.doc

¶17

Mukesh Magar (applicant) had quarreled with Harshal Salunkhe. At that time Harshal had threatened them. The accused assaulted him. He was taken to hospital by Pramod Dangare. Thus, the first informant is not eye witness to the incident. His statement is hearsay. He was provided the information by Pramod Dangare. Pramod has been impleaded as an accused. He is juvenile. The applicant was arrested on 22^nd May, 2018. On completing investigation, chargesheet is filed.

¶18

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no evidence to establish the involvement of the applicant in the crime. The EPR which is part of the charge-sheet shows that unknown person was admitted to hospital. According to the prosecution, C.C.T.V. footage with regards to the incident which had occurred in the Bar and Restaurant is recovered during the course of investigation. C.C.T.V. footage allegedly shows that the victim was assaulted and taken away by the accused. Statement of the owner of the Bar Shailendra Shetty was recorded on 21^st May, 2018. He has referred to the incident of assault by unknown persons. He had handed over C.C.T.V. footage to the police. However, the said witness has not identified the applicants as assailants and the persons seen in C.C.T.V. footage assaulting deceased. No Test Identification Parade was conducted. There is no other eye witness to the incident.

3 of 4

Sajakali Jamadar

14-ba-415-19.doc

Complainant had stated that information was provided by Pramod, who was impleaded as accused. Although the C.C.T.V. footage was recovered, there is no evidence to indicate that the person seen in the C.C.T.V. footage was applicant who had allegedly assaulted deceased. There is recovery of motorcycle from applicant. However, there is no strong evidence to show his involvement.

¶23

Learned APP submitted that the evidence against applicant is of C.C.T.V. footage. The accused was seen assaulting the deceased and taking him away. Subsequently he was assaulted at another place and he succumbed to the injuries.

¶24

Undisputedly, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. Taking into consideration aforesaid circumstances, case for grant of bail is made out.

¶25

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

i) Bail Application No. of is allowed; ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-153 of 2018 registered with Satpur Police Station, Dist. Nashik on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

Sajakali Jamadar

14-ba-415-19.doc

4 of 4

iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10.00 am. To 12.00 noon till further order.

¶32

iv) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Mukesh Anil Magar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Anil Magar 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

Laxman Tukaram Dhawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Baburao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Mahesh Pokharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Rajendra Taras Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Hassan Shaikh Abdul Khalik Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogesh Devram Goykar Vs the State of Maharashtra