Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a bail application under the IPC and Mumbai Police Act, noting victim testimony was ambiguous and co-accused were already granted bail.
Released on bail on Rs. 25,000 bond with one or two sureties and directed to report to police on the first Monday of every month for six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.991 OF 2019
Amol Rajendra Nikam .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1127 OF 2019 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.991 OF 2019
Bhushan Jaywant Pagare … Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Amol Rajendra Nikam .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mamta Kale
2/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2019
P.C. :
Mamta Kale
3/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
hold of the victim. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. The investigation was carried out. The applicant was arrested on 5/8/2018 and since then, he is in custody.
Suraj Khode were similarly placed and they are already granted bail by this Court vide orders passed in BA No.524/2019 and BA No.744/2019. He submitted that on the ground of parity the applicant also deserves to be released on bail. He further submitted that the statement of the victim is important and careful reading of the statement shows that some unknown person and not the applicant had assaulted the victim. He further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 5/8/2018 and his further custody is not necessary.
Mamta Kale
4/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
the Intervenor submitted that the applicant was carrying a deadly weapon like sickle. Ld. Counsel for the Intervenor expressed his apprehension that if he is released on bail, the applicant may cause harm to the informant and his family.
Mamta Kale
5/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
practically exonerates the present applicant. The statement given by father of the victim in the F.I.R. pales in comparison with the victim's statement. There is one more alleged eye witness Rajkiran Gaikwad. He has described the incident and has named the present applicant and other co-accused as the assailants who had assaulted the victim. He has given specific role to all the accused. However, his statement is recorded much belatedly i.e. after 14 days on 17/9/2018. The injury certificate shows that the victim had suffered three injuries on right hand , two injuries on left hand and multiple CLW on head. The offence is not escalated any further. The applicant is in custody since 5/8/2018. As observed in the order of the Sessions Court, the applicant was a witness in a murder case where the victim's brother was an accused. Thus, there was previous enmity between the parties and that could provide reason for falsely implicating the present applicant. Considering all these aspects and in particular taking into account that the co-accused are granted bail, on the ground of parity, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Hence, the following order.
Mamta Kale
6/6 17-BA-991-19 @ CA 1127-19
ORDER
(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 122/2018 registered with Mhasarul Police Station, Nashik, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station on first Monday of every month between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. for six months.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Mamta Kale
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant on grounds of parity and weak prosecution evidence.
Whether the victim's statement exonerates the applicant in an accusation of armed assault.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amol Rajendra Nikam
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
