Disposed

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2021REVN/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 2020, the Bombay High Court, hearing an appeal against a rejection of a discharge application, granted the applicant liberty to move for alteration of charge from Section 304(II) to 304A IPC, as Section 304(II) IPC. The application was subsequently disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move an application seeking alteration of charge from 304(II) to 304-A IPC; Revision disposed of as withdrawn.

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

REVN-74-2020-SR.6 2December,2021.

¶2

1/4

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 74 OF 2020

¶7

SUDHISH MAHABAL HEGDE

¶8

) APPLICANT

¶9

V/S.

¶10

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AT THE INSTANCE OF VINOBA BHAVE NAGAR POLICE STATION, MUMBAI)

¶11

) RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

Mr. Dinesh Tiwari a/w. Mr. Mikhail Dey a/w. Mr. Ansh Karnawat and Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar i/by. Dinesh Tiwari & Associates, Advocate for the applicant.

¶14

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State,

¶15

Investigating Offcer, PSI, Ms. B.Y. Mu l ik, from Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station present.

¶16

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

¶17

Thu l rsday, 2^nd December, 2021.

¶18

P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Coulnsel for the

¶19

applicant and Mr. Patil, learned Prosecultor for the State.

¶20

REVN-74-2020-SR.6 2December,2021.

¶21

2/4

¶22

Rane

¶23

Petitioner-acculsed no.2, is facing trial for the offences pulnishable ulnder Sections 304(II), 285 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 186/2016. His application seeking discharge, in Sessions Case No.186/2016 was rejected by the learned Sessions Coulrt vide order dated 7^th December 2019, correctness and legality of which is assailed in the revision before this Coulrt.

¶24

After hearing the parties for sometime, when the Coulrt was not inclined to discharge the applicant, Mr. Tiwari, learned Coulnsel for the applicant, on instrulctions, sulbmitted that prima-facie the material on record, does not sulpport the charge ulnder Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. Yet, according to Mr. Tiwari, it may be a case falling ulnder Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In sulpport of this contention, Mr. Tiwari has relied on the juldgment in the case of Su l shil Ansal Versu l s. State throu l gh

¶25

Central Bureau l l of Investigation, (2014) 6 SCC 173 . Mr. Tiwari wou l d sulbmit that in the case in hand, a fre broke oult in the hotel premises, which was rented oult by the

¶26

REVN-74-2020-SR.6 2December,2021.

¶27

3/4

¶28

Rane

¶29

applicant to the acculsed no.l, mulch before the date of the incident. This fact is not in dispulte, becaulse the prosecultion in the coulrse of investigation, broulght on record the rent agreements, execulted by the applicant, in favoulr of the acculsed no.1. The allegations against the applicant are that, he allegedly carried oult ulnaulthorised changes/alterations, in the premises, withoult permission of the local aulthority. Prosecultion wou l d rely on the action and proceedings, initiated against him by the Mulnicipal Corporation. Thuls, by relying on these material, Mr. Tiwari, learned Coulnsel for the applicant, sulbmitted that the allegation, at the most may constitulte the offence pulnishable ulnder Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 304(II).

¶30

Withoult going into the merits, it may be stated that thoulgh I was not inclined to interfere with the impulgned order, the applicant is granted liberty to move an application seeking alteration of the charge from 304(II) to 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. If, sulch an application is moved, the learned Sessions Juldge, shall

¶31

REVN-74-2020-SR.6 2December,2021.

¶32

4/4

¶33

Rane

¶34

decide the same on its own merits, keeping in view law enulnciated by the Apex Coulrt in the case of Sulshil Ansal (sulpra).

¶35

5. That for the reasons stated above, the Revision

¶36

Application is disposed of, as withdrawn.

¶37

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.12.02 18:42:48 +0530

¶38

(Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwar @ Bhau Nana Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrirang Ramji Kesarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadanand Shankar Bhatose and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramesh Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhura Milind Gadgil Vs Milind Neelkant Gadgil and Ors.

Vinayak Sheshayya Sheregar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra