Bail application for a Section 302 IPC murder charge where an eyewitness attributed assault to the applicant in his Section 161 statement though not in his Section 164 statement; considering fourteen stab wounds, recovery of a blood-stained kukri and trial delay, bail was rejected.
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.
2024:BHC-AS:12444
PMB 910. BA 351-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.351 OF 2024
BHIMRAO MULLAPPA VANI ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
Adv. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Adv. Kanishka Hasabnis for the applicant.
Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : MARCH 14, 2024.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
2. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short) and under Sections 4, 25, 27 of Indian Arms Act registered on 30.01.2021 vide C.R. No.57 of 2021 with Sangli City Police Station.
3. On the night of 29.01.2021 the deceased was called to
1/4
PMB 910. BA 351-24.doc
the terrace of one building. The deceased was accompanied by his acquaintance, the eye witness-Ruturaj. The statement of eye witness-Ruturaj recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter “Cr.P.C.”, for short) is at page 175 of the paper-book. The statement of the other eye witness-Suraj is at page 183 of the paperbook. The statement of the eye witness-Ruturaj under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30.01.2021. The statement of the eye witness-Ruturaj under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.02.2021. The statement of the eye witness-Suraj under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31.01.2021. The statement of the eye witnessSuraj under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.02.2021. In the Section 161 statement the role of the assault on the deceased by a sharp edged weapon is attributed to the applicant and the co-accused. In the Section 164 statement of the eye witness-Ruturaj has stated that co-accused – Shafiq Khalifa was assaulting the deceased with a koyta. He further mentions that he had informed those present that the deceased was assaulted by
2/4
PMB 910. BA 351-24.doc
some persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the Section 164 statement of the eye witnesses no specific role has been attributed to the applicant.
4. The materials on record reveal that the applicant owed money to the deceased. Furthermore, the deceased was called to the terrace by the applicant and the co-accused. The co-accused – Balasaheb @ Nana Dadasaheb Pukale has been enlarged on bail as no specific role is assigned to him. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody for more than three years since his arrest on 02.02.2021. It is submitted that though the charge has been framed the witnesses are yet to be examined and hence the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. The prosecution proposes to examine around hundred witnesses.
5. Learned APP submitted that there is one criminal antecedent reported against the applicant under the Gambling Act where even the deceased was involved. It is made clear that this is not a factor why the bail is denied.
6. There is a recovery of blood stained kukri at the instance of the applicant. The materials on record prima
3/4
PMB 910. BA 351-24.doc
facie disclose that there were some monetary transactions between the applicant and the deceased. The applicant owed money to the deceased. It is the applicant who had called the deceased to the terrace. In the Section 161 statement the witness has specifically assigned role to the applicant though in the Section 164 statement he says that some persons were assaulting the deceased. Looking at the gravity of the offence in as much as the deceased suffered fourteen incised and stab wound injuries, some over the vital parts of the body, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The trial Court may consider expediting the trial if a request is made depending on its calendar.
7. The application is rejected.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
4/4
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/03/2024 20:14:47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant charged with Sections 302, 120-B, 201/34 IPC and Arms Act offences should be granted bail given eyewitness statements and gravity of injuries.
9 provisions across 4 enactments
Bhimrao Mullappa Vani
The State of Maharashtra
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
