High Court at Bombay granted bail to applicant charged with murder, observing that continued detention is not required despite evidence presented.
Applicant enlarged on bail on executing PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties; directed to attend police station once a month and not contact witnesses.
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.
16-BA-1141-2022 (smo).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2022
Malikajan @ Sohel Raju Nadaf
…Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra…Respondent
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr. Nitesh Mohite, Advocate for
Applicant.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 12 OCTOBER, 2023
P. C:-
1.By this application, Applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 3 of
2020 registered with Miraj Police Station, District Sangli, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 4 and 25 of
Arms Act.
2.It is the prosecution’s case that on 02.01.2020 at about 11:30
p.m. at Malegaon road near Kalawati Temple, Miraj present
Applicant and co-accused committed murder of Salim Bashir
Bhilwade. It is alleged that on 02.01.2020 accused No.1 Ejaj Shaikh
and present Applicant in a white coloured Maruti 800 Car bearing
S.S.Kilaje page 1 of 4
16-BA-1141-2022 (smo).doc
No.MH-12-AN-9716 near Kalawati Temple gave dash to Salim from
the backside, due to dash Salim fell down on the ground.
Thereafter, accused No.1 and Applicant got down from Maruti car
assaulted Salim with knife and sickle on his neck, face, hands and
other parts of his body and ran away from the spot. In investigation
police arrested Applicant and co-accused.
3.It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that
prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. Applicant has
been dragged in this case, only because he had quarrel with the
deceased. The co-accused Sameer @ Mohammad Alfaj Shaikh has
been released on bail by the trial Court and accused Nos. 3 and 4
have been released on bail by this Court.
4.Learned counsel further submitted that it is alleged that the
said incident was witnessed by eye witness but his statement is
recorded on 14.01.2020, whereas incident was happened on
02.01.2020 and Applicant was arrested on 06.01.2020. There is
recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of Applicant, except
that there is no recovery at the instance of Applicant. Applicant is
behind bar more than two years. Hence, requested to allow the
Application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that Applicant had enmity with the deceased. Applicant along with other co-accused assaulted the
S.S.Kilaje page 2 of 4
16-BA-1141-2022 (smo).doc
deceased with knife and sickle. The said incident was witnessed by
witnesses and they have stated against the Applicant. There is prima
facie case against the Applicant. Hence, requested to reject the
Application.
6.I have heard both the learned Counsel. Perused the FIR and
charge-sheet. It is alleged that Applicant had assaulted deceased
with knife and sickle. There is no recovery of weapon at the
instance of Applicant. The eye witness Mr. Amar Gaikwad has stated
that he had seen the incident and he saw that Applicant and co-
accused were assaulting deceased with knife and sickle but his
statement was recorded on 14.01.2020 whereas incident was
happened on 02.01.2020 and applicant was arrested on 06.01.2020.
Immediately after incident, this witness had not informed the police
about the incident, after arrest of Applicant he approached the
police. Applicant is behind bar more than 3 years. Investigation is
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The Co-accused have
been released on bail. Considering the above facts, further
detention of the Applicant is not required.
7. In view of the above, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i)Applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 3 of 2020
registered with Miraj Police Station, District Sangli
S.S.Kilaje page 3 of 4
16-BA-1141-2022 (smo).doc
on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Applicant shall attend the concerned police stationonce in a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till framing of charge.(iii) Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer.(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.8. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.
9. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
10.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2023.10.21 KILAJE 15:00:00 +0530
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
The order is corrected in view of order dated 20th October 2023.
S.S.Kilaje page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged with murder.
Whether the delay in recording the eye-witness statement justifies releasing the applicant on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Malikajan @ Sohel Raju Nadaf
State of Maharashtra
SHIVKUMAR DIGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court