Allowed

Sunil Nimba Memane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Nov 2021BA/2448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a murder and robbery case at Section 439 CrPC, the High Court of Bombay considered the prosecution's reliance on a Section 27 recovery and the applicant's alleged involvement via telephone calls. Finding the evidence circumstantial and noting discrepancies in recovered articles, the Court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No.278 of 2019 on bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties.

Sunil Nimba Memane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2448 OF 2021

¶5

SUNIL NIMBA MEMANE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr.V.S.Mishra, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶12

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

 RESERVED ON : 17th NOVEMBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 25th NOVEMBER 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1The present application has been moved by the

¶16

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶17

Crime No.278 of 2019 registered with Police Station Junnar,

¶18

Pune, for offences punishable under Section 302, 394 of the

¶19

Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

AVK 1/7

¶21

Digitally signed byARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.11.25 15:05:40 +0530

¶22

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶23

2It is the case of prosecution that on 21st November
2019, at about 11.00 a.m., informant and his wife had been to
their agricultural field by leaving informant’s aunt, namely,
Jijabai, at his house. At about 2.00 p.m. informant came and saw
the dead body of Jijabai hanging on the wooden pole of the roof
of the house. The informant also noticed that cash amount of
Rs.3,000/- and gold ornaments were also missing. In all, cash
amount and ornaments worth Rs.8500/- were taken away by
some unknown person. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the
report.

¶24

3Mr.V.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,

¶25

submits that the First Information Report (FIR) was basically against one unknown person. The whole case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The only incriminating evidence against the applicant is the disclosure statement allegedly given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which ornaments and cash worth Rs.3,000/- were AVK 2/7

¶26

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶27

recovered. However, according to the learned counsel,
description of ornaments given in the Seizure Panchnama and as
given in the statement of the informant’s wife are not matching.
For all these reasons, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.

¶28

4Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed
the submissions while pointing out the conduct of the applicant
post incident and in this regard invited my attention to the
statement of informant’s wife, namely, Tulsabai Kisan Sable.
Further, according to the learned counsel, there is recovery of
stolen articles at the instance of the applicant. There being
sufficient evidence on record, the application is liable to be
rejected, argued learned APP.

¶29

5 Perused the FIR and investigation papers. Admittedly, FIR was lodged against unknown person. The prosecution is heavily relying on two things. Firstly, the statement of informant’s wife, namely, Tulsabai Kisan Sable, and, secondly, AVK 3/7

¶30

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶31

recovery of gold ornaments and cash amount, at the instance of
the applicant.

¶32

6Statement of Tulsabai Kisan Sable shows that after

¶33

the incident when she was taken to the house by her husband,
she found missing cash amount of Rs.3,000/- and two gold nose
rings worth Rs.3,000/-, silver challa worth Rs.500/- and one
gram of gold nose ring worth Rs.1500/- belonging to the
deceased. It is her further statement that many people had
gathered from the locality. At that time, she received a call on
her mobile from her nephew Sunil Nimba Memane i.e. the
present applicant, telling her that she should not tell anything to
the Police Patil in respect of the death of the deceased and should
not file any police complaint. He, allegedly, further told her that
after he reaches there, then they will decide as to what is to be
done. This conversation, according to the learned APP, questions
the conduct of applicant and shows that he was involved in the
offence.

¶34

AVK 4/7

¶35

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶36

7As far as the inference drawn by the learned APP

¶37

from the above conversation is concerned, it may not be proper
to jump to such a conclusion in absence of any supporting
convincing and inspiring evidence.

¶38

8Next circumstance relied on by the learned APP is the
alleged recovery at the instance of the applicant. The
Memorandum of Panchnama recorded under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act dated 22nd November 2019 is on record. It
appears that at the instance of the applicant Article Nos.1 to 7
came to be seized. As far as Article Nos.1 to 4 are concerned,
they are not in consistent with the statement of informant’s wife,
particularly in respect of weight and price of the ornaments /
articles in question. Except above, nothing is forthcoming.

¶39

9 Investigation is, admittedly, completed. There are no criminal antecedents. The trial may take its own time. In such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, I pass the following order : AVK 5/7

¶40

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i)Applicant – Sunil Nimba Memane shall be released on bail in
Crime No.278 of 2019 registered with Police Station Junnar,
Pune, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶43

(ii)The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶44

(iii)The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before

¶45

the trial Court.

¶46

(iv)Bail before the trial Court.

¶47

(v)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the

¶48

Sheristedar of this Court.

¶49

(vi)It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima

¶50

facie and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own

¶51

AVK 6/7

¶52

BA-2448-2021.doc

¶53

merit, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.

¶54

(vii)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands
disposed off accordingly.

¶55

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶56

AVK 7/7

Sunil Nimba Memane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Nimba Memane 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

Rahul Ashok Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kushappa Rukawwa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Karishma Pratish Desale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Maruti Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Bhaurao Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunita Raju Chamare Vs the State of Maharashtra