Allowed

Anand Brijlal Raidas v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Oct 2021BA/1090/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the plea. Despite the gravity of the charges involving murder and kidnapping, the Judge found that no strong evidence existed to implicate the applicant as the driver or rider of the vehicle used for the crime.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed; applicant to be released on furnishing security of Rs.25,000 with sureties and complying with attendance and contact requirements.

Anand Brijlal Raidas Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Dusane

¶2

1/534 BA 1090.21.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1090 OF 2021

¶6

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2021.10.08 14:52:56 +0530

¶7

....
Anand Brijlal RaidasApplicant

¶8

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ....
Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/by Karl P. Rustomkhan for Applicant.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State.

¶10

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 7^th OCTOBER, 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1.Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned counsel appearing for the

¶13

applicant and Mrs. Ambekar, learned APP for the State.

¶14

2.The applicant came to be arrested on 29th December, 2019
in Crime No. 528 of 2019, registered with Mulund Police Station, for
the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Dusane

¶16

2/534 BA 1090.21.doc

¶17

2.The prosecution case against the present applicant is,

¶18

deceased-Babu was maternal brother of Mamta, who were in love and
absconded. Accused No. 1- Geeta Chettiyar, mother of Mamta
decided to teach a lesson to deceased-Babu and as such abducted him
and murdered, resulting into registration of offence.

¶19

3.The prosecution case against the applicant is the vehicle,

¶20

which is used for abducting deceased-Babu is owned and driven by the
applicant and as such the applicant is equally involved in commission of
crime.

¶21

4.Mr. Pasbola, learned counsel appearing for the applicant

¶22

would urge that even if what has been stated in the charge-sheet is
taken to be true, it cannot be inferred that the applicant at the relevant
time was driving or riding rickshaw, which came to be seized in
commission of crime. So as to substantiate his contention, he has
relied on statement of Chinna Tangraj Shetty, the complainant and also
other relevant material available on record.

¶23

Dusane

¶24

3/534 BA 1090.21.doc

¶25

5. Learned APP submits that apart from the aforesaid

¶26

statement, fact remains that the vehicle in question, which is owned by
the applicant since was found to be prima facie involved in the crime
was seized. She would further claim that the applicant being the owner
of vehicle, in an explanation as to relevant time, who was using the
offending vehicle.

¶27

6. Considered submissions.

¶28

7. The only piece of evidence to which my attention is invited

¶29

can be considered against the applicant is statement of Chinna Shetty.
Chinna Shetty in his statement has stated that while abducting Babu
before his death, rickshaw driver was riding said rickshaw. The
applicant has not specifically named to be driver or rider of rickshaw.
What is claimed is the said vehicle is owned by the applicant. So as to

¶30

identify the rickshaw driver of the offending vehicle, which is used in the
aforesaid serious crime, no further investigation appears to have been
carried out, so as to infer that the applicant at the relevant time was
riding the rickshaw.

¶31

Dusane

¶32

4/534 BA 1090.21.doc

¶33

8.In that view of the matter, even if the offence is serious one
punishable with life imprisonment or death, the complicity as referred
to above does not reflect availability of strong piece of evidence against
the applicant, which may result conviction to the applicant. As such a
case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the application is allowed on
following conditions.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

(i)The applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 528 of 2019,
registered with Mulund Police Station, for the offence punishable under
Sections 364, 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more
sureties in the like amount.

¶36

(ii)Two consecutive absence on the part of the applicant in
attending the trial will entail the Sessions Court to proceed with
cancellation of the bail.

¶37

Dusane5/534 BA 1090.21.doc

¶38

(iii)The applicant undertakes to furnish his latest place of
residence and mobile contact number to the Sessions Court as well
as to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station, within
two weeks.

¶39

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Anand Brijlal Raidas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Brijlal Raidas 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

Nayan Nanasaheb Gandhi vs M/S/ Kolte Patil Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Pune- 411001 and Ors.

Asif Ayub Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohan Ramkrishna Dhekane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna Ganpat Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Jay Bhagwan Dulgaj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagma Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra