The High Court allowed the applicant's application for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending the disposal of her criminal appeal instituted against a conviction for murder and other offences.
Suspended the applicant's sentence and enlarged her on bail upon furnishing a bond and complying with reporting and address conditions.
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.
2023:BHC-AS:27758-DB
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2023
Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Paras Yadav, for the Applicant.
Mr. K.V.Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2023
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of her
sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of her appeal.
1/7
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
3. The applicant, vide Judgment and Order dated 24th
January 2023 has been convicted alongwith other co-accused as
under:
— For the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months.
For the offence punishable under section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.— For the offence punishable under section 364 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
— For the offence punishable under section 120-B read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
2/7
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
—
For the offence punishable under section 392 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests
on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the incident
took place on 12th January 2011 at about 5.30 p.m. It is alleged that
Nitin Padavale (deceased) returned home from his agricultural land
and at about 6.30 p.m. again went out and thereafter, did not return
home. Pursuant thereto, Nitin’s brother - Ganesh lodged a missing
complaint on 14th January 2011. It appears that on 21st January 2011,
one police Patil informed the police about a dead body, lying near
Waghzara, Kolhapur. The dead body was found lying in a valley at a
depth of about 50 feet and was in a decomposed condition with no
head attached to the body. Pursuant thereto, C.R. No. 7 of 2011
came to be registered with Shahuwadi Police Station, Kolhapur
3/7
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
alleging offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of the Indian
Penal Code. During the course of investigation, applicant and other
co-accused came to be arrested. According to the prosecution, the
accused no. 1-Ravi Mane had a love affair with the accused no. 7-
Leena Padavale (wife of the deceased) and that accused no. 1-Ravi
Mane in order to eliminate Nitin, hired accused nos. 5-Deelip
Dudhale and accused no. 6- Amit Shinde to kill the deceased. It is
alleged that pursuant thereto, a meeting was organized in a hotel on
12th January 2011, which was attended by accused nos. 1-Ravi
Mane, 2-Vijay Shinde, 3-Kishor Mane, 5-Deelip Dudhale, 6-Amit
Shinde and 9-Satish Vadar. It is the prosecution case that accused nos.
2-Vijay Shinde, 3-Kishor Mane, 4-Aakash @ Akash Waghmare, 5-
Deelip Dudhale and 6-Amit Shinde brought Nitin at Warnanagar
Kodoli, Borpadale Phata, Bambawade, Malkapur Road to Waghzara
jungle; and thereafter, accused nos. 2 - Vijay, 3 - Kishor, 5 - Deelip and
6 - Amit took Nitin to the said jungle; that accused nos. 2 - Vijay, 3 -
Kishor and 5 - Deelip held Nitin by his leg and accused no. 6 held
Nitin’s head. It is alleged that accused no. 6-Amit Shinde severed
4/7
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
Nitin’s head from his body and killed him and thereafter, the body
was thrown in a valley. It is further the prosecution case, that when
the aforesaid accused reached Amrut Nagari Phata, post the incident,
accused no.1-Ravi came alongwith accused no. 11-Manesh
Kuchkoravi (on accused no. 1’s motor cycle), and that accused no. 6 -
Amit showed Nitin’s head to accused nos. 1-Ravi. Thereafter, Nitin’s
head and all his articles were disposed of, by throwing the same in
Warna river.
5. As noted earlier, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. As far as the applicant is concerned, it is the
prosecution case that the applicant had called the deceased prior to
the incident and as such, had asked him to go to the spot. Learned
Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has not
brought any material on record in the form of CDR, to show that the
applicant had infact, called deceased – Nitin on 12th January, 2011.
Learned Counsel relied on the examination-in-chief of the Nodal
Officer i.e. P.W.17 – Vasant Jadhav, to show that the said officer has
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
not spoken about the CDRs of the applicant. He submits that apart
from the aforesaid, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with
the said incident. Learned APP, when confronted, does not dispute the
fact that the CDR records of the applicant is not brought on record by
the prosecution. Learned APP is unable to point out any other
circumstantial evidence qua the applicant. It is not in dispute that the
applicant was on bail, pending the trial and has not abused the
conditions of bail.
6. Considering the evidence on record qua the applicant as
stated aforesaid, the application is allowed and the applicant’s
sentence is suspended and she is enlarged on bail on the following
terms and conditions:
O R D E R
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;
6/7
Wakodikar
12c. IA 989-2023.doc
ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three
months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till her Appeal is
finally disposed of;
iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of her
current address and mobile contact number and/or change of
residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;
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.
7.The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
8.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
7/7
Wakodikar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing of the criminal appeal.
Whether the applicant has met sufficient conditions to be released on bail given the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi
The State of Maharashtra
REVATI MOHITE DERE
GAURI GODSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court