High Court at Aurangabad rejected a bail application for an accused charged with murder and other offences. The Bench declined bail, citing the gravity of injuries, consistent eyewitness statements, and a prior rejection after the charge-sheet was filed, noting no changed circumstances.
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.
ba-1421-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1421 OF 2021
SYED ALI AKBAR HASHMI S/O SYED FAYAZODDIN HASHMI
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H., Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Vaishali Patil Jadhav, APP for the respondent – State.
CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE: 07.12.2021
ORDER:-
.Present application has been filed by the applicant - accused
No.5, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.20 of 2021
registered with Kotwali Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 294, 324, 506, 143, 147, 148,
149 of Indian Penal Code. Before proceeding further, it can be seen that
the earlier Bail Application filed by the present applicant i.e. Bail
Application No. 808 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on 21.08.2021
when it can be seen that the charge-sheet was filed before the Trial
Court on 26.04.2021. That means, this Court had considered the
evidence collected in the charge-sheet when his earlier bail application
was rejected on 21.08.2021 by this Court (Coram : V. G. Bisht, J.), who
(1)
ba-1421-2021.odt
is now not available with this Bench.
2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H. for the
applicant and learned APP Mrs. Vaishali Patil Jadhave for the respondent
– State. In order to cut short, it can be seen that both of them have
made submissions in support of their respective contentions.
3.In addition to the submissions, it has been submitted by the
learned Advocate for the applicant that this Court had earlier
mechanically rejected the bail application of the applicant.
4.The FIR has been lodged by one Ahmed Khan Salim Khan, who
himself is an injured person. Deceased Majid Khan aged 35 was the
brother of the informant. It has been stated that all the accused persons
had assaulted the informant and his brothers with stone, iron rod and
sticks. Role attributed to the present applicant is that by holding stone
in his hand and shouting that the brother of the informant should be
eliminated. He had hit that stone on the head of Majid resulting grave
injury to Majid on the head. If we consider his postmortem report,
column No.17, it can be seen that there are seven injuries including
depressed fracture on right parietal region. There are corresponding
internal injuries and the cause of death is shown as death due to head
injury. The stone has been recovered from the place. In all eight
(2)
ba-1421-2021.odt
weapons have been recovered and those articles were sent to the
medical officer, who had conducted the postmortem, for inspection. He
has given the impression that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem
report are possible by those articles in due circumstances. Thus, the
stone allegedly used by the present applicant for causing injury to Majid
appears to be also responsible for his death. It is also to be noted that
there are other injured persons as well as eye witnesses whose
statements have been recorded, which are consistent enough to the role
attributed to the present applicant. Therefore, when there is evidence
against the present applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail,
especially when his earlier bail application was also rejected by this
Court after perusing the charge-sheet and now, there is no change in the
circumstance. Hence, the application stands rejected.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
scm
(3)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves release on bail given the gravity of charges including murder and prior rejection of bail after charge-sheet.
Whether medical evidence and eyewitness accounts establish the applicant's responsibility for the deceased's death.
Syed Ali Akbar Hashmi
State of Maharashtra
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court