Allowed

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2021BA/945/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving drowning. Considering the weak evidence against him, the decomposed nature of the body, and the release of other co-accused on bail, the court ordered his release on bail with a surety.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

16 BA 945-2020.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2020

¶5

Bablu @ Avinash Anil Jagtap... Applicant
 versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr. Sunil S. Kamble, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶7

Smt. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State-Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 08th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. The applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R. No.251/2019 registered at Vadgaon Police

¶11

Station, Dist. Kolhapur on 8th May 2019 under Sections 302 and
201 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Counsel for the

¶13

applicant and Smt. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶14

3. The applicant is arrested on 12th May 2019 and since

¶15

then he is in custody. There were five other accused. They are at

¶16

Manjusha

¶17

2 / 5 16 BA 945-2020.odt

¶18

present released on bail. The applicant is the only accused who is
in custody in connection with this offence. The investigation is
over and chargesheet is filed.

¶19

4. The prosecution story is that, on 8th May 2019, a dead
body was found in a well in the village Manpadale. The dead body
was highly decomposed. The F.I.R was lodged. During
investigation, the police came up with a theory that the deceased
Aniket Walwekar was harassing his family members and therefore,
his parents Rekha and Arun, his sister Shivani with the help of
present applicant and another accused Suraj Thanekar forced him
to consume poison and thereby, committed his murder. The
deceased was still alive. He was throttled to death. However, as of
today there is no specific cause of death mentioned because the
body was highly decomposed. The medical opinion is that though
exact cause of death could not be given, death due to drowning
was not ruled out.

¶20

5. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that there is hardly any evidence against the present applicant. All
the accused are already released on bail. Therefore, on parity also,

¶21

3 / 5

¶22

16 BA 945-2020.odt

¶23

the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶24

6. Learned APP relied on the statement of widow of the

¶25

deceased and two other witnesses to submit that there is some
evidence against the present applicant.

¶26

7. I have considered their submissions. With the
assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused the
chargesheet. The statement of widow shows that the deceased was
having dispute with his family and there used to be frequent
quarrels. One accused Suraj Thanekar used to frequently come to
their house. He used to be accompanied by the present applicant
and one Abhijeet Suryavanshi. On 1st May 2019, this witness had
gone to her parental house, at that time, the deceased told her that
he was apprehending danger to his life. Since 5th May 2019, she
had lost contact with the deceased.

¶27

8. Statement of one Manoj Patil shows that on 4th May
2019, at around 7.45 p.m., the deceased had called this witness
and told him that his family members were forcing him to
consume poison.

¶28

9. Another witness Vinayak Suryawanshi has stated that,

¶29

4 / 5 16 BA 945-2020.odt

¶30

on 4th May 2019, Suraj and the applicant had gone to the house of
the deceased. Beyond that, there is absolutely no reference either
to the applicant or his connection with the deceased.

¶31

10.There is one other circumstance against the present
applicant that is recovery of a Sim Card at his instance. The
prosecution case is that, before throwing the deceased in a well his
mobile phone was removed. The handset was kept by Suraj and
Sim Card was given to the present applicant. However, there is no
connecting piece of evidence against the present applicant to
establish that the Sim Card had any connection with the deceased.
11. Considering this very weak nature of evidence against
the present applicant and also taking into account the fact that all
the other accused are released on bail who have more or less,
similar evidence against them, I am inclined to grant bail to the
present applicant.

¶32

12. Hence, the following order.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i)In connection with C.R. No.251/2019 registered at

¶35

Vadgaon Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur, the

¶36

5 / 5 16 BA 945-2020.odt

¶37

Applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶38

(ii)The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap 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

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhaysinh Rajendra Kaldhone Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zahid Ahmed Khurshid Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sufiya Maksud Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gaurav Dinesh Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Sanjay Keripale Vs the State of Maharashtra