Mangesh Babu Rewale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

“ 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence for enlarging the applicant on bail. The applicant is in custody since 16^th March 2013 i.e. more than 12 years. In ordinary course, we would be inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶15

2. However, learned APP brought to our notice that the applicant is also facing another trial for the ofence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC in Special Case No. 18 of 2011. “

¶16

2. The Applicant has been convicted for committing murder of a 15

¶17

year old 9^th standard girl. It was the case of prosecution that victim

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

Patil-SR

¶20

906 ia 2297-25.doc

¶21

along with her 3 friends was on her way to school early in the morning of fateful day. The Applicant, an unknown person, approached her from front side. He suddenly intercepted the victim and dragged her to nearby paddy ield. Friends of the victim, on hearing the shouts of victim, looked behind. They realised their friend to have been assaulted with a sharp weapon. Friends informed the said incident to the villagers. Ultimately, police report was iled. The Applicant was arrested 3 days after the incident. Friends who were in the company of victim at the time of incident, identiied the Applicant in test identiication parade and before the Court as well. Relying on the said evidence, the trial Court convicted the Applicant.

¶22

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is behind the bars for about 13 years. There is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up for inal hearing in near future. She, therefore, urged for allowing the application.

¶23

4. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that it is a serious ofence. The Applicant is accused in some other crime, punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She therefore urged for the rejection of application.

¶24

5. We have perused the relevant evidence and the judgment herein.

¶25

6. There was no acquaintance between the Applicant and victim. Both are also not from the same village. It is not known as to why the

¶26

2 of 4

¶27

Patil-SR

¶28

906 ia 2297-25.doc

¶29

Applicant has committed murder of a 15 year old girl. True, the friends of victim claim to have seen the Applicant at the relevant time. They have even identiied him in the test identiication parade and before the Court as well. Beside this, there is no other evidence against the Applicant. At this stage, less said is better about the evidence of friends of the victim who claim to have been in the company of her at the relevant time.

¶30

7. The Applicant is behind the bars for about 13 years. The appeal is of 2025. There is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up for inal hearing in near future.

¶31

8. So far as regards the Applicant to be an accused in other Sessions case for ofence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is concerned, he is on bail in the said crime. The alleged incident in the said case is of May 2008. FIR in the said case was lodged against an unknown person. It is an ofence of rape of a mentally challenged girl.

¶32

We should not be construed to have made any observation as to the merits of the said case.

¶33

9. In view of the fact that the Applicant is on bail in the said crime and for little over 13 years the Applicant is behind the bars in the present case and moreover there is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up for inal hearing, we allow the present application in following terms:

¶34

3 of 4

¶35

Patil-SR

¶36

906 ia 2297-25.doc

¶37

[a] The sentence imposed on Applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed vide judgment and order dated 10^th March 2016 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2013 shall remain suspended till the inal disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2025.

¶38

[b] The Applicant be released on his furnishing bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more solvent sureties of like amount in connection with Sessions Case No. 31 of 2013.

¶39

[c] Bail before the trial Court.

¶40

[d] The Applicant shall mark his presence at Dapoli Police Station once a month, on the irst Monday of each month, until hearing of this appeal.

¶41

10. Application stands disposed of.

¶42

[Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [R. G. Avachat, J.]

¶43

4 of 4

¶44

Patil-SR

Mangesh Babu Rewale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Babu Rewale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhairavi Engineers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principle Secretary and Ors.

The Inchalkranji Ex Servicemen Co. Houseing So Ltd. Thr Its Chairman Shri Chandrakant Balso Anurkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhuri Suresh Survase vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept, and Others

Chidanand Siddhappa Unnad vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Utagi Thr Its President and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Shivneri Contractor Thr. Proprietor Shivaji Uttareshwar Talekar vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.