Disposed

Sanjit Jayprakash Taak and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 May 2024BA/1665/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected a bail application, holding that bail is not warranted due to the gravity of charges and the commencement of trial. The court directed the Sessions Judge to expedite the examination of remaining witnesses and to record the accused's 313 statements by 31/12/2024.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off with liberty to file fresh bail application after trial commences if directions are not complied with; trial to be completed by 31/12/2024.

Sanjit Jayprakash Taak and Ors. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/3 5 BA 1665-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1665 OF 2024

¶3

Sanjit Jayprakash Taak and ors .. Applicants Versus

¶4

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …

¶5

Mr.Narayan Rokade a/w Abhijeet Pawar for the applicants. Smt. K.T.Hiwrale, APP for State.

¶6

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 7^th MAY, 2024

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

1 On 7/01/2021, the application filed by Sanjit Jayprakash Taak was disposed off as withdrawn with a liberty being conferred to move a fresh application if the trial did not commenced within six months. The applicant no.1 along with Sujit and Ravi Taak are charged with Sections 302, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, of IPC a/w Section 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, along with 12 other accused. They are charged of causing death of one Vinod Narwala, husband of the complainant by mounting an assault on him, when he was enroute to his house along with his wife, the complainant and he was assaulted by swords by the three applicants, and other weapons like iron pipe, stones by the other accused persons. He succumbed the

¶9

Ashish

¶10

2/3 5 BA 1665-24.doc

¶11

injuries sustained by him in the said assault.

¶12

2 It may be true that the applicant is arrested on 4/05/2018 and since then he is incarcerated. However looking to the gravity of the charges and the material compiled in the charge-sheet, even on the second occasion, I am not inclined to release him on bail. This is more particular for the reason, that the trial has commenced and according to the learned APP two prosecution witnesses are already examined and the trial in Sessions Case No.105 of 2018 is scheduled tomorrow before Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati.

¶13

3 The learned APP on instructions make a statement that 8 more witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution and considering the long period of incarceration of the applicant, I deem it appropriate to direct the additional Sessions Judge to prepare a schedule of the examination of the remaining witnesses and ensure that the witnesses remain present on the said date, and they are examined/cross-examined.

¶14

In case, if there are investigating officers, medical experts, who are to be examined, the learned Judge is at liberty to avail the facility of video conferencing, if the officers are not present at the Station, but in any case, it must be kept in mind that on the given date the examination of the said witnesses must be conducted.

¶15

4 Upon recording the evidence of the balance 8 witnesses the statement of the accused under Section 313 shall

¶16

Ashish

¶17

3/3 5 BA 1665-24.doc

¶18

also be recorded in a time bound manner and the concerned prison, where the accused persons are incarcerated, shall ensure that they are produced before the Court for the purpose of recording their 313 statement of CrPC, without any excuse being offered.

¶19

The Sessions Judge is requested to complete the trial on or before 31/12/2024, which shall include the pronouncement of the Judgment.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the application stands disposed off.

¶21

5 Needless to state that the applicants shall render their co-operation in conclusion of trial and shall, on no reason delay the proceedings.

¶22

(SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶23

Ashish

Sanjit Jayprakash Taak and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Jayprakash Taak and Ors. 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

Mahavir Enterprise vs State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Food

Mumbai Shahar Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Federation Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Mcgm)

Ranjit Fulchand Gautam Vs State of Maharashtra

Kailas Gajanan Somase and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jaikumar Dashrath Jaya Vs Rupesh Babanrao Thorat

Rahul Shravan Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra