Third application for suspension of sentence and bail during a pending murder appeal, based solely on long incarceration of about twelve years. The court held that long incarceration alone cannot justify release under Section 389 CrPC without palpable grounds suggesting the conviction may not be sustainable, and rejected the application.
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.
1/4 6 ia 352 of 2024 common.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2754 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2021
Murgesh Pechi Muttu
…. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
…. Respondents
Mr.Prashant Gurav, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.S.S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent – State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 3rd DCEMBER, 2024.
P.C. :
Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2024.12.04 17:44:48 +0530
Rajeshri Aher
2/4 6 ia 352 of 2024 common.doc
“5. We have considered the evidence for application for Bail. P.W.1, the wife of the Applicant is consistent in her version. The only omission which has been shown is regarding sale of 22 tolas of gold. P.W.1’s version is also corroborated by medical evidence as regard the injuries. P.W.7 has deposed that she saw the Applicant leaving the house at the relevant time, which corroborates the version of P.W.1. The Applicant was not on bail during the trial. Considering these aspects,the application for Bail is rejected.”
“4. As per the prosecution case on 19 December 2012, the Applicant assaulted his mother–in–law with a blade of scissor causing grievous injuries on hand, forehead, back and left hand. The victim was taken to the hospital and she was declared dead. Ther are two eye witnesses. The wife of the Applicant, that is, daughter of the deceased and the minor daughter of the Applicant, and the neighbours. As regard the evidence of the Applicant’s wife is concerned, the same has been consistent and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. These aspects have been considered while rejecting the earlier bail application. No ground is made out to take a different view.”
Rajeshri Aher
3/4 6 ia 352 of 2024 common.doc
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 .
Accepting the aforesaid statement, we are guided by the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph no.33 of the decision in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr.2 , which reads to the following effect:
“33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affrmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.”
1 2022 SCC OnLine 697
2 (2023) 6 SCC 123
Rajeshri Aher
4/4 6 ia 352 of 2024 common.doc
the only ground to release the Applicant on bail in exercise of our power under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Interim Application is accordingly rejected.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Rajeshri Aher
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant's conviction appeal should be suspended and he released on bail under Section 389 CrPC after about 12 years of incarceration, absent merits-based grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred
2022 SCC OnLine 697 · Who else cites this
Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr.Relied on¶4
(2023) 6 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Murgesh Pechi Muttu
The State of Maharashtra
Bharati Dangre
Manjusha Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
