Dismissed

Tejas Santosh Shinde @ Balya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2021BA/805/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application regarding a case involving death (murder), the High Court of Judicature at Bombay denied bail, citing prima facie evidence of complicity and deadly injury, but allowed a future request if trial was delayed until December 2021.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied. Applicant may renew request if trial does not commence on or before 31st December 2021.

Tejas Santosh Shinde @ Balya Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

30.BA -805-2020.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEB MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2021.08.11 19:19:48 +0530

¶3

IN TH E H IG H C O U RT O F JU D IC A TU RE A T BO M BA Y C RIM IN A L A PPE LLA TE JU RIS D IC TIO N

¶4

Bail A pplication N o. 805 / 2020

¶5

Tejas S antosh S hinde @ Balya.. A pplicant

¶6

Versus.

¶7

The S tate of Maharashtra.. Respondent

¶8

****

¶9

Mr. S ujit Sahoo, Advocate for A pplicant.
Ms. A namika Malhotra, A PP for S tate.

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
 DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2021.

¶12

Per Court : -

¶13

1. Prim a facie the evidence on record indicates the com plicity of

¶14

the A pplicant in the crime. The medical evidence show s that the
deceased w as unconscious nearly for ten days and had undergone
emergency surgery left FTP D ecompressive C raniotomy w ith removal

¶15

of acute S D H and parietal removal of left temporal IC H w as done on
15/09/2019 and Tracheostomy done on 22/09/2019.

¶16

2. Prim a facie, injury sustained by the C om plainant w as capable of

¶17

1/2

¶18

30.BA -805-2020.doc

¶19

causing death. Thus, I am not inclined to release him on bail.
H ow ever, it may be stated that A pplicant is 20 year old person w ith
no criminal antecedents, has been incarcerated since September,
2019 and therefore, if the trial does not commence on or before 31st
D ecember, 2021. A pplicant may renew his request for his enlargement
on bail.

¶20

3. A pplication is disposed of in the aforesaid term s.

¶21

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶22

Najeeb...

¶23

2/2

Tejas Santosh Shinde @ Balya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Santosh Shinde @ Balya 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

Kapil Suresh Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akhtar Ali Yusuf Idrisi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naseem @ Muskan Abdul Wahid Shaikh @ Naseem Bano Vs the State of Maharashtra

Archana Anil Kumar Rao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishal Roopnarayan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shagaf Irfan Suse Vs the State of Maharashtra