Bail application rejected for an applicant charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that direct evidence and postmortem findings of death due to burns make the applicant undeserving of bail, distinguishing earlier precedents based on circumstantial evidence.
Bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(44)BA-192-2022.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2022
Shahir Devram Parakhe ] .. Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondent
Mr.Salman Shaikh a/w Audhesh Kanojiya for the Applicant. Smt.A.A.Takalkar, APP for the State.
PSI R.K. Jadhav, Diaghar Police Station present.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J
DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2022.
P.C.
1] The Applicant is charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and came to be arrested on 23.03.2020 when a CR was lodged with Diaghar Police Station by one Payal Arjun Vidyasagar.
2] Initially an offence was invoked under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as the complainant specifically stated that she was set on fire by the present Applicant who is her husband, when they were present in their house. Subsequently, on the complainant succumbing to the burn injuries on 23.03.2022, the offence was converted into Section 302 of the IPC.
1/3
(44)BA-192-2022.doc
3] On completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed which compile the material available and this include statement of Kajal Mourya who is an eye witness to the incident. Her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. specifically refer to the incident when she stated that at around 12.30 hours on 18.03.2022 Applicant entered into the house and the deceased questioned him as to why he is suspicious. A quarrel took place between them and the applicant went into the kitchen. Till 1.00 a.m. he remained in the kitchen, but after some time when both Payal and Kajal went to sleep Payal woke her up and she was drenched in kerosene and smell of kerosene was coming. She noticed that the Applicant was throwing substance in the bottle upon her and when she tried to resist him, she was pushed away. After that, it is alleged that the Applicant ignited a match stick and threw it on Payal by saying that he wanted to end up the subject. It is alleged that he went away from the spot.
4] Same version is given by the complainant when she lodged the complaint and it would amount to Dying Declaration since pursuant to the said incident, she succumbed to the injuries.
5] When there is direct evidence against the Applicant compiled in the charge-sheet and Postmortem report reveal that the death is due to septisemia due to 70% burns, the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant that there was no relationship of marriage between them and she was insisting for performance of marriage with the Applicant, is falsified by the statement of the eye witness as well as deceased herself who has stated that they were residing together, on being married.
2/3
(44)BA-192-2022.doc
6] Learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balkrishna Tularam Angre vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.1704/2017. ON perusal of the same, it is not of any succour to the Applicant as the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the accused was in custody for 15 months.
Another decision of this Court is relied upon by the learned counsel for the Applicant in the case of Pradeep Shivaji Shinare vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 11.12.2012, where bail was granted recording that on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.
7] As far as the present case is concerned, it will have to be decided on the basis of settled parameters of law which are laid down as regards applicability of Section 439. Apart from the period of incarceration, gravity and nature of evidence are also important factors which deserve consideration while considering the application for bail.
8] Considering the material collected against the Applicant in the charge-sheet, which prima facie indict him of the charge of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Applicant do not deserve to be released on bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.
[BHARATI DANGRE, J]
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, charged with murder and facing direct evidence, deserves bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Whether the reliance by the applicant on precedents like Balkrishna Tularam Angre is applicable given the presence of direct evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balkrishna Tularam Angre vs. State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶20
Balkrishna Tularam Angre vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.1704/2017
Pradeep Shivaji Shinare vs. State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶21
Pradeep Shivaji Shinare vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 11.12.2012
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shahir Devram Parakhe
State of Maharashtra
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
