Allowed

Gokul Madhukar Yelmame v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Mar 2024BA/2711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with murder and other offences. The court held that prima facie there was no material indicating the applicant's presence at the crime spot and that he had made out a case for bail despite antecedents, releasing him on bond with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding district entry, witness conduct, and evidence tampering.

Gokul Madhukar Yelmame Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-ba-2711-2023.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2711 OF 2023

¶5

Gokul Madhukar Yelmame… Applicant

¶6

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶7

Digitally signed by NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.03.01 17:22:47 +0530

¶8

V/s.
State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶9

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4069 OF 2023
IN

¶10

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2711 OF 2023

¶11

Aarti Rajesh Shinde… Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶12

Mr. Aniket V. Nikam i/b Mr. Amit Icham for the
Applicant in Bail Application.

¶13

Mr. Rohan D. Kaiche, for the Applicant in IA
(Intervener).

¶14

Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, APP for the State-Respondent.
Sr. PI. Kad, Panchavati Police Station.

¶15

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶16

DATED:MARCH 1, 2024

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R. No.371 of 2021
dated 24th November 2021 registered with Panchvati Police Station
District Nashik for offences punishable under Section 302, 341,
212, 120(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

¶19

¶20

1-ba-2711-2023.doc

¶21

Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶22

2.According to the prosecution, the Applicant and his brother
were carrying on a business of selling vegetables. The applicant’s
brother had financial dispute with the deceased and there used to
quarrel between them.

¶23

3.According to prosecution on 23rd November 2021 around
1.P.M., the applicant along with three other accused were
discussing about killing the deceased. On 23rd November 2021
there was quarrel between other accused and the deceased. The
other two accused assaulted the deceased on head by using stone
lying at the place of incident. According to the prosecution,
accused No.2 assaulted the deceased on his head, face and chest
by stone.

¶24

4.The applicant was arrested on 4th December 2021. After
completion of the investigation the Investigating Agency has filed
charge-sheet against the applicant and other accused.

¶25

5.On perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that according to
the prosecution one Raj Nathe had seen the applicant discussing
about killing the deceased on the night of incident. On perusal of
the charge-sheet except the statement by two witnesses attributing
role of conspiracy, prima facie, there is no material to indicate that
the applicant was present at the spot of the incident. It also
appears from the prosecution case that two accused picked up
stone lying at the spot of the incident.

¶26

6.There are four antecedents against applicant out of which he
has been acquitted in two cases. However, considering the material

¶27

¶28

1-ba-2711-2023.doc

¶29

placed on record, by way of charge-sheet and considering the fact
that the applicant is in jail from 4th December 2021, in my opinion,
the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶30

7.It also appears that on the date of incident, the order of
externment was inforce. The learned advocate for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant shall not enter the limits of
Nashik District during the pendency of the Trial. Hence following
order:

¶31

a)The applicant Gokul Madhukar Yelmame be released
on bail in connection with Cr. No.371 of 2021 dated 24th
November 2021 registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station,
Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 212,
120(b) read with 34 the IPC, on furnishing PR bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶32

b)The applicant shall not enter the District of Nashik
except for marking his presence to the concerned Police
Station on second Saturday of each month between 11.00
A.M. to 2.00 P.M. till the conclusion of the Trial.

¶33

c)The applicant shall enter the District only for the
purpose of remaining present before the Trial Court on each
date unless exempted by the Sessions Court.

¶34

d)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted
with the facts of the case so that dissuade them from
disclosing such facts.

¶35

¶36

1-ba-2711-2023.doc

¶37

e)The applicant shall not play mis-chief with the
evidence collected by the Police.

¶38

f)The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond
furnish his address and cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer and shall not change his residence till
the disposal of the case.

¶39

g)The applicant is also permitted to enter the district for
the purpose of attending trials in relation to offences already
registered against him.

¶40

8. The bail application is disposed in above terms. No costs.

¶41

9.In view of disposal of bail application, the interim
application stands disposed of as infructuous.

¶42

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶43

Gokul Madhukar Yelmame v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Madhukar Yelmame 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

Mr. Jayprakash Dandegaonkar and Anr. Vs Shri. Niranjan Vasantrao Nalawade

Vitthal Dagadu Gavand and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra State Co-Op. Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Niranjan Vasantrao Nalawade

Impact Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissionrer

Shri. Mahesh Tukaram Ramugade Vs Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Pune Div. Pune and Ors.

Arsiya Asgar Kerure Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.