Allowed

Krushna Dadaram Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2023IA/2723/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application filed by a convicted appellant seeking enlargement on bail. The court suspended the applicant's sentence pending the hearing and final disposal of his criminal appeal, citing parity with a co-accused's bail order and lack of evidence against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the applicant's sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, subject to terms including furnishing a bond.

Krushna Dadaram Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:28608-DB

¶2

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶3

rrpillai

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2723 OF 2023

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.891 OF 2023

¶7

Krushna Dadaram Shinde...Applicant/Appellant

¶8

 Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶10

Mr. Keshav Chavan for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

¶12

GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER 2023

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2.By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his
sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of his aforesaid appeal.

¶17

3.The applicant vide judgment and order dated 14th February 2023
passed by the learned Session Judge, Nashik in Session Case No. 198
of 2018 alongwith other co-accused has been convicted and sentenced

¶18

1/7

¶19

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶20

as under :

¶21

for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 149 of IPC to suffer imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six

¶22

months

¶23

and

¶24

— for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 148

¶25

of IPC to suffer simple imprisonment, as well as to pay fine.

¶26

 All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶27

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity. He submits that identically placed co-accused Nitin Uttam Pandit’s has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 28^th June 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the order which is at Exhibit B at page 115 of the application.

¶28

5.Perused the papers, and, in particular the evidence of the eye-
witnesses i.e. PW 1-Ramesh, PW 8- Dagu, PW 9-Santosh and PW 1-
Chetan Bagule.

¶29

2/7

¶30

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶31

It is the prosecution case, that the incident took place on 27^th December 2017 at about 10:30 pm-11:00 pm. According to PW 1– Ramesh, an eye witness and first informant, he was out with Devidas(deceased) on the said day. He has stated that at about 10:30 pm they had pavbhaji; that after having pavbhaji he, Dinesh and Devidas(deceased) went on Pulsar motorcycle to drop Devidas at Rajivnagar Zopadpatti; that at about 11:00 p.m, when they reached the tar road outside the house of Devidas, they got down from the motorcycle; that one rickshaw was in front of them; that from the said rickshaw, Ravi Nikalje, Sachin Nikalje, Krushna Shinde, Nitin Pandit(Applicant), Deepak Vavar, Balu Dambale who were sitting in the rickshaw stepped out; that the said persons came near Devidas and that because of some old dispute, there was quarrel between these persons and Devidas. PW-1-Ramesh has further stated that Sachin Nikalje and Krushna Shinde ran towards the zopadpatti; and after going inside the zopadpatti, Sachin Nikalje returned with a sword like weapon in his hand and Krushna with a sickle(Koyta); that Sachin Nikalje assaulted Devidas with the sword like weapon on his neck, pursuant to which Devidas fell down on the ground; that he (PW-1)

¶32

3/7

¶33

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶34

and Dinesh tried to lift him, however, at that time, Ravi Nikalje pulled
the sword like weapon from Sachin’s hand and stabbed Dinesh
(deceased); and that Dinesh also fell on the ground. According to PW
1-Ramesh, after witnessing the assault, he started running towards the
old Indira Nagar police station; that Ravi Nikalje having sword like
weapon and others having stones in their hand started chasing him
(PW-1); that whilst running he fell on the ground, resulting in an
injury on his left leg and palm; that he again got up and went to the
spot, were Dinesh and Devidas were being assaulted; that pursuant to
the said incident Dinesh and Devidas succumbed to their injuries. A
perusal of the evidence of PW 1-Ramesh, shows that the said witness
has not attributed any over act to the applicant except for stating that
applicant was alongwith the other co-accused and that he too got
down with the other accused from the rickshaw.

¶35

As far as PW-8-Dagu is concerned, he has stated that the incident took place on 27^th December 2017; that on hearing noise on the road, he saw 5-6 people assaulting his nephew Dinesh; that Ravi Nikalje had held his nephew by his hair and was assaulting his nephew with a chopper on his neck; and that his brother Devidas was lying in blood

¶36

4/7

¶37

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶38

pool, at a distance of 50-60 feet. PW 8- Dagu has also not attributed
any over act to to the applicant. Police recorded his statement after
four days of the incident.

¶39

PW 9- Santosh in his evidence has stated that on the day and time of the incident, he was at a distance of 100-125 feet; that there was some quarrel going on; that he saw 5-6 persons assaulting his cousin Dinesh and Devidas with a knife. He has stated that Sachin Nikalje assaulted Devidas in his abdomen with a knife and that Deepak and Bablu had held Devidas; that when Devidas came ahead to save Dinesh, Ravi Nikalje pull out the knife from Sachin’s hand and assaulted Dinesh on his back and neck; that Dinesh tried to run, however, he too fell down; that Krushna Shinde (applicant) and Nitin Pandit had held him; and that Ravi Nikalje came and assaulted Dinesh with a knife on his throat. P.W.-10’s- Chetan evidence is similar to that of P.W-9- Santosh. No specific over act has been attributed to the applicant even by the said witnesses i.e. PW-9 and PW-10.

¶40

Learned APP does not dispute the aforesaid i.e. role of the applicant is similar to that of Nitin Pandit whose sentence has been

¶41

5/7

¶42

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶43

suspended and who was enlarged on bail vide order dated 28th June
2023.

¶44

From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that the role attributed to the applicant is similar to that of Nitin Pandit whose sentence was suspended and who was enlarged on bail. Be that as it may be, i t is not in dispute that the applicant was on bail pending trial and that post his conviction, he was taken into custody. It is also not in dispute that whilst on bail, the applicant has not abused or misused his liberty or misused the conditions of bail. Admittedly, there is no other circumstantial evidence on record as against the applicant.

¶45

Considering the nature of evidence against the applicant, his role in the incident and the fact, that the applicant was on bail pending trial, the application is allowed and the applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, on the following terms and conditions:-

¶46

6/7

¶47

21-IA-2723-2023-APEAL-891-2023.doc

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i)The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶50

ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three
months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till the appeal
is finally disposed of;

¶51

iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his
current address and mobile contact number and/or change of
residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶52

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before
the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High
Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application
seeking cancellation of bail.

¶53

12.The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed.

¶54

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

¶55

GAURI GODSE, J.

¶56

 REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶57

7/7

Krushna Dadaram Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna Dadaram Shinde 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jigna Jitendra Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashish Ramajor Yadav @ Golu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Ganpat Pardhi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan R. Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanket Kailas Dhainje Vs State of Maharashtra

Balu Atmaram Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra