Allowed

Abid Imran Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Dec 2019BA/965/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application connected to a murder case triable under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC, the High Court of Bombay at Criminal Appeal allowed the bail after observing that the case relies only on circumstantial evidence, absent CCTV footage of the applicant, and the investigation was complete with the chargesheet filed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties and to attend the police station once a month.

Abid Imran Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

rpa 1/4 905-ba-965-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.965 OF 2019

¶4

Abid Imran Khan .. Applicant Vs. State of Mahrashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mri.Nitesh J. Mohite, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

API Babasaheb R. Zarekar, Deccan Gymkhana Police Station, Pune, present.

¶8

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶9

DATED : DECEMBER 04, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.No.90 of 2018, registered with Deccan Gymkhana Police Station, Pune, for the ofence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).

¶12

2 The prosecution case is that one dead body was found in Mutha river on 21^st May, 2018. The dead body was of a lady aged around 35 to 40 years. It was noticed that sack was tied at

¶13

rpa 2/4 905-ba-965-19.doc

¶14

the waist of the body and hands were also tied by a rope. Report was lodged with the police. The applicant was arrested on 5^th June, 2018. The co-accused Saidab was also arrested and he is in custody. The victim was missing from 25^th May, 2018. There is no eye witness to the incident. The statement of one Nilesh Thorat mentions that the deceased had called him on the day of incident. She was having afair with the said witness. He received call from her at about 11:30 p.m. Thereafter he tried to call her, but, there was no response. At the time of arrest of the Applicant, one spect was recovered from him. The statement of husband of the deceased was recorded on 28^th August, 2018, identifying the spect, as that of the deceased.

¶15

3 Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the Applicant showing his involvement in the crime. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of spectacle, there is no other evidence against him. Although the recovery of spect was done on 4^th June, 2018, statement of husband of the deceased was recorded on 28^th August, 2018, identifying the spect. The Applicant was arrested on 5^th June, 2018. There are no criminal antecedents against him.

¶16

rpa 3/4 905-ba-965-19.doc

¶17

4 Learned APP submitted that the deceased was taken to the place, which was in a dilapidated condition. She was found floating in the river. She was murdered. The involvement of the Applicant is established through the evidence of recovery of spect, which was used by the victim.

¶18

5 The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no other evidence. Learned APP fairly submitted on instructions that the CCTV Footages which recovered during the course of investigation, do not show presence of the Applicant.

¶19

6 There is no eye witness to the incident. Except recovery of the spectacles, there is no other cogent evidence to establish the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. Learned APP also submitted that the CDR recovery indicate that the call were exchanged between the deceased and the Applicant before the incident and on the date of incident. However, there is no report with regards to lower location. It is pertinent to note that the statement of the husband of the deceased was recorded after about two and half months from the date of recovery of spect. The investigation is completed and charge – sheet is fled. Hence, case for grant of bail is made out.

¶20

rpa 4/4 905-ba-965-19.doc

¶21

7 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶22

:: O R D E R ::

¶23

(i) Bail Application No.965 of 2019, is allowed;

¶24

(ii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.90 of 2018, registered with Deccan Gymkhana Police Station, Pune, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶25

(iii) Applicant is directed to attend Deccan Jimkhana Police Station, Pune, once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and, thereafter, as and when called for till further orders;

¶26

(iv) Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶27

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Abid Imran Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid Imran Khan 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

Rohan Pradiprao Mahalangikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jivaji Ramchandra Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravikant Yashwant Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Bhagwan Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Kalim Shabbir Ahmed Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Mangesh Saswade Vs the State of Maharashtra