Allowed

Appaso Shankar Shahapure and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Jan 2019BA/48/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding charges of murder and insult, the single judge granted regular bail to the applicants. The court held that the applicants made out a case for bail based on the eye-witness statement recorded after a significant delay and doubts about witnessing the incident in dark hours.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.

Appaso Shankar Shahapure and Anr. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ISM

¶2

1 20.48.19 ba.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2019 Appaso Shankar Shahapure .....Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent

¶6

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2019

¶7

Sheetal Bhupal Nargude ….Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN 1. Appaso Shankar Shahapure .....Applicants 2. Sachin @ Balu Appaso Shahapure V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent

¶8

Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale advocate for the applicant Mr. Manoj Patil for Intervener Ms. S. S. Kaushik APP for the State Mr. Rajendra Shankar Ugalmugale, Kurundwad Police Station

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 22, 2019.

¶11

2 20.48.19 ba.doc

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No. 94/2018 registered with Kurundwad Police Station, Kolhapur for offence punishable under sections 302, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2 Apart from the ground of parity in view of the order dated 18/12/2018 passed in Bail Application No. 3171/2018 in respect of co-accused namely Ramchandra and Sandeep, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal intention on the part of applicants also cannot be inferred as applicants were never intending to commit murder. So as to substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the language of the order dated 18/12/2018 granting bail to the co-accused. The learned counsel as such submits that applicants, even if are attributed specific role are entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

3 The prayer is opposed by the learned APP who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is informed that the order dated 18/12/2018 passed in Bail Application No. 3171/2018

¶16

3 20.48.19 ba.doc

¶17

is subject matter of challenge in an SLP. Apart from above, it is claimed that eye witness Dilip in his statement dated July 18, 2018 has specifically named the present applicants with an active role in the commission of crime.

¶18

4 Needless to say that order dated 18/12/2018 has considered the issue as regards the intention of the accused persons to commit crime in question, particularly other co-accused to whom the alleged eye witness Dilip has not seen with an active role in the crime in question.

¶19

5 If the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is appreciated, what is noted from the charge-sheet is the statement of eye witness was recorded on July 18, 2018 for the incident dated May 30, 2018. For recording delayed statement after more than 6 weeks of an eye witness, no convincing explanation is coming forward.

¶20

6 Apart from above, it is claimed that the alleged incident was witnessed by the eye witness in the wee hours i.e. around 3.30 a.m.

¶21

4 20.48.19 ba.doc

¶22

in the morning. This itself creates doubt as regards witnessing the incident of assault by the applicants in dark hours.

¶23

7 In the wake of above, in my opinion, applicants have made out case for grant of bail. Hence, following order:

¶24

(A) Applicants be released in Crime No. 94/2018 registered with Kurundwad Police Station, Kolhapur on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶25

(B) Applicants shall attend all the dates before the Trial Court unless precluded for medical reasons.

¶26

¶27

8 Application stands disposed of.

¶28

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Appaso Shankar Shahapure and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appaso Shankar Shahapure 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaluram Tukaram Walkoli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjana Balkrishna Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Shivaji Palve and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfan Yusuf Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfan Habibullah Farooqui Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay Sopan Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra