Allowed

Sachin Devram Virtakar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jun 2023BA/643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed bail in a murder case where the sole evidence was the recovery of a knife. The court held that the co-accused's absence is not a ground to refuse bail, noting the weak prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount for offences under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC.

Sachin Devram Virtakar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

 917-BA.643-23.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

917 BAIL APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2023

¶5

SACHIN DEVRAM VIRATKAR
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bobde Sopan G., Mr. D. A. Paikrao.
APP for Respondent-State : Ms. V. N. Patil-Jadhav.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE :09.06.2023

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶11

2. The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.201 of 2021,
registered at Sonai Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with
Section 34 of the IPC.

¶12

3. The FIR reveals that the first informant received the
information from third person that deceased was lying by the
side of the road. The applicant was not lastly seen together
with the co-accused. The sole evidence lying with the
prosecution is the recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the applicant would

¶13

 917-BA.643-23.odt

¶14

¶15

submit that no Test Identification Parade was held. The
prosecution case is based upon the circumstantial evidence.
Except the recovery of the knife at the instance of the
applicant, prosecution has no other evidence.

¶16

4. Learned APP would submit that the co-accused has been

¶17

still absconding. Hence, he may not be granted bail.

¶18

5.Abscondence of the co-accused is no ground to refuse
the bail. The Court has to consider the facts of the case and
the material collected against the applicant. As discussed
above, except recovery under Section 27, prosecution has no
other evidence against the applicant. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order :

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶21

(ii)Applicant SACHIN DEVRAM VIRATKAR be
released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount, in Crime
No.201 of 2021, registered at Sonai Police Station,
District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable

¶22

 917-BA.643-23.odt

¶23

¶24

under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of
the IPC, on the following conditions :

¶25

(a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

(b) He shall attend the trial on each and every effective date.

¶27

 (S. G. MEHARE, J.)

¶28

vmk/-

Sachin Devram Virtakar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Devram Virtakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Shivaji Gangthade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kartarsing Hatyarsing Tak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Waman Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vedika @ Suresh Vikrant Jadhav Vs Vikrant Shankarrao Jadhav and Others

Chaitnya @ Bhaiya Bhimrao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Satyawan Namdeo Oname Vs the State of Maharashtra