Dismissed¶23

Sagar Ramhari Padwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jun 2024BA/595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed; Sagar Ramhari Padwal v. State of Maharashtra; BA 595/2024; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; S.G. Mehare, J.; 21-06-2024; Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC; Section 169 CrPC discharge of accused; eyewitness credibility of pan shop owner; statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC; sickle recovery; prime accused; risk of tampering with witnesses; witness safety; antecedents of deceased not ground for bail; Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad; findings for bail purposes only.

What did the court decide?

The presence of the owner of the betel nut (pan) shop where the incident happened cannot be doubted, and he did not contradict his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., so his credibility is not impeached. ¶18

Sagar Ramhari Padwal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in respect of C.R.No.0178 of 2023 (Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The applicant was the prime accused who assaulted the deceased with a sickle, which was recovered, and the prosecution has strong prima facie evidence against him.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

¶18

Key takeaways

The statements of the eyewitness clearly show the role attributed to the applicant in the offence.ratio¶21
Discharge of some of the accused under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. does not make the prosecution case weak, particularly because the first information report was lodged by a person who was not an eyewitness.ratio¶22
Antecedents to the discredit of the deceased are not a ground to grant bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refusal - Murder and related offences (Ss.302, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC), C.R.No.0178 of 2023, Anandnagar P.S., Osmanabad. Bail application dismissed. Court held: (i) presence of the pan/betel-nut-shop owner eyewitness could not be doubted and his statements under Ss.161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were not contradicted; (ii) eyewitness statements clearly show the role attributed to the applicant; (iii) discharge of some co-accused under S.169 Cr.P.C. and the informant not being an eyewitness do not weaken the prosecution case; (iv) the applicant was the prime accused who assaulted the deceased with a recovered sickle and strong prima facie evidence exists; (v) antecedents of the deceased are no ground for bail; (vi) grave offence, risk of witness tampering and witness safety made release unsafe. Findings confined to bail purposes only. (S.G. Mehare, J.; 21-06-2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:11824

¶2

944-BA-595-24.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2024

¶6

SAGAR RAMHARI PADWAL VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Manoj D. Shinde APP for Respondent/State : Mr. D. J. Patil

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 21-06-2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

¶12

The applicant seeks bail in C.R.No.0178 of 2023 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Taluka and District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Learned senior counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that initially, the first information report was registered against five accused. The first informant was not an eyewitness. During the course of the investigation, it was transpired that only two of the five accused were involved in the crime. Hence, the Investigating Officer submitted a report under Section 169 of the

¶14

944-BA-595-24.odt

¶15

¶16

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “ Cr.P.C. ”). He has vehemently argued that the statement of the witness, who was the pan shop owner where the incident happened, was not believable as he has given contradictory statements. Another eyewitness was also not believable for the reason that her presence on the spot of the incident was doubtful. The deceased was a habitual offender, having many enemies. The applicant/accused has been falsely involved in the case since he had a civil dispute over the land. He also had a political enmity. The witnesses are not natural.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. for the respondent submits that antecedents of the deceased do not give licence to anybody to kill him. He submits that the prime eyewitness i.e. owner of the pan shop, did not contradict his statement. There is a great possibility of winning over him. His statement is important. There is recovery of a sickle and the bullet (vehicle), which was seen on the spot of the incident by two eyewitnesses.

¶18

The presence of the owner of the betel nut shop where the incident happened cannot be doubted. He did not contradict his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. He deposed before the learned Magistrate that he opens his shop at 6.00 to 7.00 a.m. and keeps it open till 9.30 p.m. So, it cannot be said that it is a contradiction or impeaching his credibility. The statements of

¶19

944-BA-595-24.odt

¶20

¶21

the eyewitness clearly show the role attributed to the applicant. The deceased was so mercilessly beaten that he died on the spot due to profound bleeding.

¶22

It is not a case that the said witness i.e. pan shop owner, does not know the applicant. Barely discharging some of the accused under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. does not make the prosecution case weak, particularly because the first information report was lodged by the person who was not the eyewitness. The facts remain that the applicant was the prime accused, who assaulted the deceased with a sickle, which was recovered. The prosecution has strong prima facie evidence against the applicant. The antecedent to the discredit of the deceased is also not a ground to grant bail. The deceased was brutally killed. The offence is grievous. There is a great possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The safety of the witnesses is essential in this case. Therefore, it would not be safe to grant bail to the applicant.

¶23

For the above reasons, the application stands dismissed.

¶24

The findings are recorded for bail purposes only.

¶25

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶26

rrd

Sagar Ramhari Padwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Ramhari Padwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Jalinder Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash @ Devidas @ Abba Vikram Alhat Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Pravin @ Pankaj Arun Piraji Bothe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shirish @ Munna Bhausaheb Kawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kisan @ Krishna Kunjya Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar) and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra