Allowed

Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Apr 2024BA/1515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence. Court noted charge not framed, trial unlikely to conclude soon, applicant young with no antecedents and no flight risk, and granted bail subject to conditions including residence outside Palghar district.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on PR bond of Rs.50,000 with one or two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including no entry into Palghar district and weekly police reporting.

Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1515 OF 2024

¶5

Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Anil Jadhav, Advocate, for the Applicant. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 19^th APRIL 2024

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for Applicant and Ms.

¶10

Yadav, learned APP for Respondent-State.

¶11

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

¶12

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are as follows:-

¶13

1.	C. R. No.	356/2023
2.	Date of registration of F.I.R.	03/04/2023
3.	Name of Police Station	Waliv, Tal.- Vasai, District- Palghar
4.	Section/s invoked	302, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
5.	Date of incident	31/03/2023

Page 1 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

Date of arrest 04/04/2023 7. Date of filing of Charge-sheet 28/06/2023

¶18

The Applicant is Accused No.1. As per the prosecution case, the Applicant was involved in a relationship outside of marriage with the Accused No.2-Munnidevi Dube. The deceased was the husband of the Accused No.2-Munnidevi Dube. The deceased was a habitual alcoholic and it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident in question i.e. on the night of 31^st March 2023 the Applicant and the deceased consumed liquor together on a hill and when the deceased was inebrieted, the present Applicant threw him and because the deceased did not die, the Applicant then strangulated the deceased.

¶19

Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the case is of circumstantial evidence. There are no circumstances connecting the Applicant to the offence. He states that the Accused No.2 has been released on bail. He submitted that the Applicant is a young man aged 24 years and that there are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant, therefore the Applicant be released on bail.

Page 2 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the Respondent-State strongly opposed the Bail Application. She submitted that the offence in question was committed with premeditation. She submitted that there is incriminating material against the Applicant. She submitted that the Accused No.2 had not actively participated in the incident in question and therefore the Applicant cannot seek benefit of parity. She submitted that the C.C.T.V. footage shows the Applicant purchasing liquor and that there is recovery of liquor bottle and a rope at the instance of the Applicant. She submitted that very strong circumstances exist against the Applicant.

¶24

Perusal of the record shows that in the present case, the incident in question occurred on 31^st March 2023, F.I.R. was lodged on 3^rd April 2023, the Applicant was arrested on 4^th April 2023 and, Charge-sheet was filed on 28^th June 2023. There is no progress in the trial and even the charge is also not framed yet. As per the Charge-sheet, there are 26 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. The trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon and is likely to take a considerably long time.

Page 3 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

The Applicant is a young man aged 24 years.

¶29

The case is of circumstantial evidence. Prima facie, except recovery there is no other circumstance.

¶30

There are no criminal antecedents against the present Applicant.

¶31

Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant states that as several witnesses are residing in the same locality as that of the Applicant, the Applicant will therefore not reside within District - Palghar and that the Applicant will reside at C/o. Pawan Kumar, Near Dhanpat Mourya Kirana Store, Kolshet Road, Thane, Maharashtra 400607.

¶32

The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of flight.

¶33

Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions.

¶34

In view thereof, the following order:-

Page 4 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

O R D E R

(a) The Applicant – Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.356 of 2023 registered with the Waliv Police Station, District – Palghar on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶40

(b) The Applicant shall not enter the Palghar district after being released on bail, except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if called, and for attending the trial.

¶41

(c) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶42

(d) The Applicant shall report to the Manpada Police Station, District - Thane once every week, on every

Page 5 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial. The Police Inspector of Manpada Police Station, District - Thane to communicate details thereof to the Investigating Officer.

¶47

(e) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

¶48

(f) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶49

(g) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The Applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments thereat.

¶50

(h) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to

Page 6 of 7

Sonali

905-BA-1515-2024.DOC

the Investigating Officer.

¶55

The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

It is clarified that the Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits, uninfluenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

¶57

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶58

Page 7 of 7

¶59

Sonali

Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaykumar Chandeshwar Prasad 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

Harekrishan Abhimanyu Muduli Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Komal Anil Dhanve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Bhivaji Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bapu @ Kumar Prabhakar Nair Vs State of Maharashtra

Hansraj Ramdas Kasare vs Dr.Ambedkar Chsl

Vishal Laxman Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.