Allowed

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Mar 2021BA/567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving six accused. The judge held that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet lacked admissible evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, and reliance on CDRs was insufficient to warrant detention.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000/-.

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 : 1 : 30.BA-567-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.567 OF 2021

¶4

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:10th MARCH, 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.177/2016 registered at Khed police
station, District-Pune under Sections 396, 302, 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 3.8.2016
and since then he is in custody. The investigation is over and
the charge-sheet is filed.

¶9

2.The prosecution case is about the murder of one
Arun @ Mangesh Tabaji Chabukswar. He was a driver on a
Scorpio car. According to the prosecution case, he was
murdered by six accused, including the present Applicant,

¶10

1 of 5

¶11

Deshmane(PS)

¶12

 : 2 : 30.BA-567-21.odt

¶13

when they were travelling in his car. At that time, cash of
Rs.1,600/- and a mobile phone worth Rs.2,000/- were also
taken away. The deceased was assaulted with stone and a
sharp weapon.

¶14

3.The FIR is lodged by one Sitaram Chabukswar,
who was uncle of the deceased. He has stated that on
27.7.2016, in the morning, the deceased had left his house in
his Scorpio car. He did not return. On 28.7.2016, the
informant was called by one Ravindra Ghegde. He told the
informant that the car of the deceased had fallen in a valley.
The informant and his family members went there. Though
the car was taken out from the valley, the deceased was not
found. The informant, therefore, had reported about his
missing to the police station. On 30.7.2016, highly
decomposed body of the deceased was found in village
Bhomale. His head was crushed and there were injuries with
sharp weapon. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. The
investigation was carried out and the Applicant was arrested.
The prosecution case is that to rob the deceased of his amount

¶15

2 of 5

¶16

 : 3 : 30.BA-567-21.odt

¶17

and mobile phone, this offence was committed.

¶18

4.Heard Shri Priyal Sarda, learned Counsel for the
Applicant and Shri Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

¶19

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there is absolutely no admissible evidence against the present
Applicant. The prosecution case is based only on suspicion
and, therefore, bail should not be denied to him.

¶20

6.Learned A.P.P. could not seriously dispute this
submission. He only tried to submit that there are C.D.R.
indicating that the Applicant was in that area around the time
when the murder was committed.

¶21

7.I have considered their submissions and with their
assistance I have perused the entire charge-sheet. The cause
of death mentioned in the charge-sheet was “Evidence of head
injury; with evidence of chop injury over right hand. Viscera
kept for chemical analysis.” There were six injuries. There
was one crush injury on the head and five injuries on the hand
or palm caused by sharp weapons. Therefore, there is no

¶22

3 of 5

¶23

 : 4 : 30.BA-567-21.odt

¶24

doubt that the deceased had died a homicidal death.
However, the question about the Applicant’s involvement in
the offence has remained unanswered in the entire charge-
sheet.

¶25

8.There is recovery of his clothes at his instance,
but, there is no further piece of evidence connecting these
clothes to show that the Applicant has committed murder or
he was part of the group which has committed murder and
that he was wearing same clothes at that time.

¶26

9.This material, at this stage, is totally innocuous.
There are no eye witnesses to the incident. There is no other
recovery of weapon etc. at the instance of the present
Applicant. The weapon Sattur was recovered at the instance
of the co-accused Kisan Dhandre. But, that cannot be held as
an incriminating evidence against the present Applicant.

¶27

10.As far as the submission that the CDR showed his
location around the same place and around the same time is
concerned, that by itself will not indicates his participation in

¶28

4 of 5

¶29

 : 5 : 30.BA-567-21.odt

¶30

the murder.

¶31

11.Considering all these aspects, there does not
appear to be any admissible evidence against the present
Applicant warranting his further detention in custody during
course of the trial. He is in custody since 3.8.2016. He
deserves to be released on bail. The investigation is over.
Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present Applicant.
Hence, the following order :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i)In connection with C.R.No.177/2016 registered at
Khed police station, District-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.

¶34

Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane

¶35

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.12 14:50:13 +0530

¶36

(ii)The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶38

Deshmane (PS)

¶39

5 of 5

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umashankar @ Pankajsingh Takra @ Pankajsingh Kalusingh Shikalkar @ Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Ramesh Ombale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prithviraj Rajesh Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Jalal Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Sambhaji Dube Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mistri Jafar Pawar Vs the Saraswat Co.Op. Bank Limited