Allowed

Devanand Sanjay Gore v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023BA/842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applicants charged with murder and culpable homicide were granted bail out of the same crime number by the High Court of Bombay. The court held that further detention was not necessary as the trial is expected to be lengthy and the prosecution case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or two sureties in like amount.

Devanand Sanjay Gore Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

9-BA-842-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 842 OF 2022

¶4

Devanand Sanjay Gore ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2147 OF 2022

¶7

Kamlesh Madhukar Yadav...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent
__________

¶8

Mr. Kedar J. Patil a/w Mr. Sachin Mane, Ms. Sakshi Kadam, Pratik
Tare Advocate for Applicant in BA/842/2022.

¶9

Mr. Karansingh Rajput Advocate for the Applicant in BA/2147/2022.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

Digitally signed by ETHAPE ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ASHOK Date: 2023.10.13 16:43:48 +0530

¶11

CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :10th OCTOBER, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. By these applications, the applicants are seeking bail in Crime

¶14

No.206 of 2021 registered with Koregaon Police Station, Satara for

¶15

the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the

¶16

Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the applicants are seeking bail out of

¶17

same crime numbers. Hence, I am deciding these two applications
together.

¶18

2. It is prosecution’s case that on 4^th August 2021 at about 10:30

¶19

D.A.Ethape, P.A. 1

¶20

9-BA-842-2022.doc

¶21

a.m. the deceased (Mangesh Jadhav) left his house and did not return
to home at his usual time. Thus, the first informant i.e. mother of the
deceased tried to contact him on mobile but the same was switched
off. Thereafter, first informant came to know about the murder of the
deceased. In investigation, police have arrested the applicants in
connection of this crime.

¶22

3.It is the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that
prosecution case is wholly based on the circumstantial evidence. At
the instance of the applicant, knife, motorcycle, clothes and still pipe
have been recovered. Except this nothing is produced on record
against the applicant’s to connect them with the crime. Statement of
witnesses have been recorded to show the involvement of the
applicants in the crime but those statements are not sufficient to
connect the applicant’s with the crime. The applicants are behind the
bar for more than two years. Investigation is completed and charge-
sheet has been filed. Hence, requested to allow the applications.

¶23

4.It is the contention of learned APP that accused Devanad Gore
had lend Rs.31,000/- to the deceased and he had refused to give that
amount. On that basis both the applicants hatched conspiracy and
murdered the deceased. There is prima facie case against the
applicants. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶24

D.A.Ethape, P.A. 2

¶25

9-BA-842-2022.doc

¶26

5.I have heard both the learned Counsels, perused FIR and
charge-sheet.

¶27

6.Admittedly, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. It is alleged that at the instance of the applicants, the
weapon’s used in the crime have been recovered. There is extra
Judicial Confession made by both the accused before the witnesses
but it cannot be considered at this stage, moreover it is weak piece of
evidence. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It
needs to proved by evidence. The applicants are behind the bar more
than two years. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been
filed. It may take time to conclude the trial.

¶28

7. Considering the above facts, further detention of the applicants is not required. In view of the above, I pass the following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i)Applicants be enlarged on bail in Crime No.206 of
2021 registered with Koregaon Police Station, Satara, on
executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with
one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶31

(ii)Applicants shall attend the concerned police station
once in a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00 a.m. to

¶32

3:00 p.m. till framing of charge.

¶33

D.A.Ethape, P.A. 3

¶34

9-BA-842-2022.doc

¶35

(iii) Applicants 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.

¶36

(iv) Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶37

(v) The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are accordingly disposed off.

¶38

8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶39

 [SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]

¶40

D.A.Ethape, P.A. 4

Devanand Sanjay Gore v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devanand Sanjay Gore v. 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

Jay Dilip Shejwal Vs State of Maharashtra

Prakash Ankush Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradyumna Balgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yash @ Raghu Atul Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asdif Nasir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra