Allowed

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

Bombay HC10 Mar 2021BA/668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined bail application in a murder case where the sole evidence against the applicant was a bank credit entry. Finding insufficient material to warrant continued custody, the court granted bail on a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 and directed fortnightly police visits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the applicant on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties and complying with fortnight-wise police visits for one year.

Mistri Jafar Pawar Vs the Saraswat Co.Op. Bank… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 31.BA-668-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.668 OF 2021

¶5

Mistri Jafar Pawar .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶8

DATE:10th MARCH, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.144/2020 dated 27.7.2020 registered

¶11

at Umadi police Station, District-Sangli, under Sections 302,
120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant
was arrested on 29.7.2020 and since then he is in custody.
The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed.

¶12

2.Heard Shri Vikrant Phatate, learned Counsel for
the Applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the
State.

¶13

1 of 5

¶14

Deshmane(PS)

¶15

 : 2 : 31.BA-668-21.odt

¶16

3.The prosecution case is in respect of commission
of murder of one Revansiddha Hugar. The prosecution case is
that the main accused was Ganpati Hugar. He was the real
brother of the deceased. There used to be frequent quarrels
between them. Revansiddha was addicted to liquor and he
used to threaten that he would commit murder of Ganpati.
Therefore, Ganpati paid money to the Applicant’s brother
Umesh and all of them hatched a conspiracy to commit
murder of Revansiddha. On 25.7.2020, the deceased was
found injured in front of his house. He had suffered injuries
and he had already died.

¶17

4.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there is absolutely no evidence against the present Applicant.
There is one entry of 2.7.2020 in the Applicant’s bank account
showing cash deposit of Rs.1,60,000/- and only based on that
the Applicant is arrested in this offence on the assumption
that he was part of the conspiracy.

¶18

5.Learned A.P.P. opposed this application. She
submitted that the Applicant’s brother Umesh, who is the

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

 : 3 : 31.BA-668-21.odt

¶21

main accused who has accepted money from the brother of
the deceased, is still absconding. The other accused Ganpati
had shown the house where the conspiracy was hatched and
according to him the Applicant was present in that house
when the conspiracy was hatched. She also relied upon the
bank entry, showing Rs.1,60,000/- deposit of cash in his
account, to contend that he was part of the conspiracy.

¶22

6.I have considered all these submissions. With

¶23

their assistance, I have perused the charge-sheet. The FIR is
lodged by the widow of the deceased. She has stated that on
24.7.2020, the deceased was found in front of his house in
injured condition. The accused No.1 Ganpati, who was the
main accused, was brother of the deceased, had given the
complaint on 25.7.2020 that the deceased was found in
injured condition. But subsequently Ganpati was shown as the
main accused, who had hatched the conspiracy to eliminate
his own brother Revansiddha.

¶24

7.The postmortem notes show that the deceased had
suffered as many as six injuries and the cause of death was

¶25

3 of 5

¶26

 : 4 : 31.BA-668-21.odt

¶27

mentioned as “head injury with neck compression.”

¶28

8.The question about the Applicant’s involvement in

¶29

the offence has remained unanswered in the entire charge-
sheet.

¶30

9.As pointed out by both learned Counsel, the only
circumstance which the prosecution is relying upon is an entry
of deposit of cash of Rs.1,60,000/- in the bank account of the
present Applicant on 2.7.2020. The prosecution wants to
connect this entry as the money received for commission of
murder. This solitary piece of evidence will not unerringly
point out towards the Applicant’s involvement in actual
commission of murder or hatching of conspiracy to commit
murder. The investigation has not progressed further to show
as to who had actually deposited this amount. Learned A.P.P.
pointed out that this amount could be the amount which was
taken by him from accused Umesh, who is absconding, for
executing murder. However, this only gives rise to some
suspicion. This is not even a strong enough circumstance
against the present Applicant.

¶31

4 of 5

¶32

 : 5 : 31.BA-668-21.odt

¶33

10.The other circumstance of co-accused showing the
house where the conspiracy was hatched, hardly carries any
weight because nothing was discovered pursuant to such
statement given before the police under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.

¶34

11.In this view of the matter, in the entire charge-
sheet there does not appear to be sufficient material against
the present Applicant warranting his further custody during
the entire period of trial. Therefore, I am inclined to grant
bail to the present Applicant. Hence, the following order :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) In connection with C.R.No.144/2020 dated 27.7.2020 registered with Umadi police Station, District-Sangli, 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.

¶37

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a fortnight for a period of one year from today.

¶38

Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane

¶39

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.12 12:26:27 +0530

¶40

(iii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶42

Deshmane (PS)

¶43

5 of 5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Samir Mohammad Rafiq Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra