Allowed

Baban Eknath Mukane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jun 2021BA/445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case. The court held that a wallet found at the spot and a vague statement by one witness did not form a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the applicant's guilt.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a police bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Baban Eknath Mukane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

33-BA-445-21.odt

¶2

1 / 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2021

¶5

Baban Eknath Mukane.... Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Sachin B. Chandan, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Smt.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 18th JUNE, 2021
(Through video conferencing)

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶13

connection with C.R.No.534/2018 registered with Khed Police

¶14

Station, Pune, under sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Applicant was arrested on 08/11/2018 and since then
he is in custody.

¶15

2. The FIR was lodged by one Raju Mukane, who was son

¶16

of the deceased from her earlier marriage. One Leelabai had got

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

2 / 5 33-BA-445-21.odt

¶19

married after death of her first husband, to her second husband
Navsu. They were staying together in a hut. The FIR mentions
that Leelabai was indulging in magic and other practices and
used to give suggestion for any illness and used to treat sick
people in the village. On 08/11/2018 villagers found Leelabai
and Navasu murdered in their hut. The informant went there.
Both of them had injuries on their head. Some liquor bottles and
a heavy wooden stick was lying nearby. Leelabai had also
suffered some incised wound on her abdomen. At the spot, one
wallet was lying. The Applicant’s photo and voter’s card was in
it. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶20

3. Heard Mr.Sachin B. Chandan, learned counsel for the Applicant and Smt.A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
finding of wallet is the only piece of circumstance against the
Applicant. But this is not an incriminating piece and does not
point to any role of the Applicant. It does not show the only

¶22

3 / 5 33-BA-445-21.odt

¶23

possibility of involvement of the present Applicant. He submitted
that there is a statement of one Laxman Borkar who was brother
of the other accused Jaitu Borkar. He had stated that the
Applicant and Jaitu were talking with each other and were
saying that Leelabai should be murdered. Apart from this
statement, there is nothing against the present Applicant. He
submitted that even this statement is vague and does not
complete the chain.

¶24

5. Learned APP relied on finding of wallet at the spot and
statement of Laxman to contend that this evidence is sufficient.
She submitted that the offence is serious as two persons were
murdered.

¶25

6. I have considered these submissions. The post-mortem
notes of deceased Navasu show that he had suffered five injuries
and there was fracture of skull. So obviously because of this, he
had died. Other deceased Leelabai had suffered seven injuries
including a stab wound. There was fracture of skull.

¶26

33-BA-445-21.odt

¶27

4 / 5

¶28

7. The aforementioned circumstances of finding wallet

¶29

and statement of Laxman do not complete chain of
circumstantial evidence against the present Applicant. When the
Applicant was arrested, his clothes were seized and the
Panchanama mentions that there were some stain like blood.
However, there is no C.A. report eliminating a possibility that it
could be his own blood. Thus, though offence is serious, the
circumstances against the present Applicant are lacking and they
do not form complete chain of circumstances. There is recovery
at the instace of co-accused Jaitu of Koyta and knife. However,
that circumstance cannot be used against the present Applicant.
In any case, it was a recovery, effected from an open place.
Finding of the wallet at the spot by itself will not lead to the
only inference of guilt of the Applicant. Statement of Laxman
does not really establish the motive against the present
Applicant. Considering all these aspects, the Applicant has made
out a case for his release on bail.

¶30

33-BA-445-21.odt

¶31

5 / 5

¶32

8. Hence, the following order :

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i)In connection with C.R.No.534/2018
registered with Khed Police Station, Pune,
the Applicant is directed to be released on
bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶35

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Baban Eknath Mukane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Eknath Mukane 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

Ganesh Jagannath Tikole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankarava Sangappa Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Uttam Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Ashok Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Dattatray Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra