Allowed

Sunil Haribhau Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2020BA/779/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a bail application for Sunil Haribhau Jadhav, accused of murder under Sections 302 IPC and related offences. The applicant claimed parity with co-accused already on bail. The court held that unrecovered evidence linking the pistol to the incident was insignificant and granted bail on similarity conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties of similar amount.

Sunil Haribhau Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/5 28 BA-779-20.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.779 OF 2020

¶4

Mandira Salgaonkar

¶5

Digitally signedby MandiraSalgaonkar Date: 2020.12.1620:00:37 +0530

¶6

Sunil Haribhau Jadhav.. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra.. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Satyajit Bora i/b Mr.Pravin M. Dabade for the Applicant.

¶8

Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
 DATED : 15th DECEMBER, 2020

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

1.The applicant, who has been charge-sheeted in
C.R.No.157 of 2017 registered with Haveli Police Station and
who was arrested on 30th April, 2017, seek his release on bail.
He has been charged under Sections 301, 302, 120-B, 341, 143,
147, 148, 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(25), 4(25) of the
Arms Act with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶12

2.The applicant claim parity with co-accused Sunil Shelar
(Bail Application No.2291 of 2017) who has been released on
bail on 13th December, 2017 by this Court. Another order is in
case of co-accused Pankaj Tate (Criminal Bail Application
No.2964 of 2018 dated 5th February, 2019) and in case of

¶13

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶14

2/5 28 BA-779-20.doc

¶15

Sachin Deepak Gaikwad (Criminal Bail Application No.930 of
2019 dated 24th September, 2020).

¶16

3.On perusal of the First Information Report and the
material contained in the charge-sheet, when the learned APP
was specifically posed with the question as to what is the
distinguishing factor between the three applicants, who have
been released on bail and the present applicant before this
Court, namely, Sunil Jadhav, she state that there is a recovery
of country made pistol from him, under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act.

¶17

4.Perusal of the complaint resulting into registration of FIR
would refer to an incident dated 27th April, 2017 and the
allegation levelled is to the effect that while the complainant
accompanied with deceased Balasaheb Ghule and Akshay
Kiwale was driving the Scorpio car, they crossed path with a
dumper being driven by Tanaji Kamble. Another white coloured
Scorpio followed them and this was being driven by Milind
Kiwale. It is alleged that from the said Scorpio, Milind Kiwale,
Rahul Kiwale, Akshay Chaudhari, Datta Pokale and five
unknown persons alighted. Tanaji Kamble, who was driving
dumper, also got down and he had a revolver in his hand, is the
allegation of the complainant. It is also alleged that Milind
Kiwale, who alighted from the Scorpio, also had a gun whereas
Rahul Kiwale was armed with revolver. It is alleged that

¶18

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶19

3/5 28 BA-779-20.doc

¶20

Akshay Chaudhari and Datta Pokale alongwith five other
unknown persons had sickles in their hands. The incident is
then described in detail and Tanaji Kamble and Rahul Kiwale
are attributed role of firing from their revolver. At that time,
the five unknown persons are attributed the role of pulling out
the deceased and attacking him by means of sickle in his head,
stomach and face. The complainant has clearly described the
incident and apart from the named accused persons, five
unknown persons are alleged to have used sickles as a weapon
for assaulting the deceased.

¶21

5.The recovery of the country made pistol, at this stage in
absence of any evidence to the effect that it was used as a
weapon as per the version of any witness, is not of any
significance. The applicants, who have been released on bail
and who have been referred to above, are the one who have not
been named in the FIR and are part of the five unknown
persons to whom reference has been made by the complainant.
Sunil Shelar has been released on bail on the ground that in the
supplementary statement of the complainant, the names of five
unknown persons were disclosed, but the Court has prima facie
observed that the test identification parade that was conducted,
was not in terms of the Criminal Manual. The direct occular
evidence available and the fact that the assailants were known
to the complainant, it was observed that it would be doubtful to
conclusively establish that the applicants were present

¶22

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶23

4/5 28 BA-779-20.doc

¶24

alongwith the principal accused at the time of incident and,
therefore, they were held to be entitled for release on bail.

¶25

Sachin Gaikwad was also admitted to bail by relying upon
the said order. In any case, since the charge-sheet has been
filed and considering the role attributed to him and further the
applicant is incarcerated since 30th April, 2017, the applicant
deserve to be released on bail subject to the similar conditions
as imposed on the co-accused.

¶26

: ORDER:

¶27

(a) Application is allowed.

¶28

(b)Applicant – Sunil Haribhau Jadhav shall be
released on bail in C.R.No.157 of 2017
registered with Haveli Police Station on
furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like
amount.

¶29

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶30

(d) The applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial and shall attend the trial Court on every date of hearing, unless exempted by the Court.

¶31

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶32

5/5 28 BA-779-20.doc

¶33

(e)The applicant shall provide the residential address and mobile number to the Investigaing officer.

¶34

6. The application is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶35

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶36

M.M.Salgaonkar

Sunil Haribhau Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Haribhau Jadhav 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

Hanumant Dasharath Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Jalindar Awale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Dhondu Zhore and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tukaram S/O Atmaram Hatim @ Anand Aatmaram Pradhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saiprasad Vasant Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Subhash Nanaware Vs the State of Maharashtra