IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Babar & Another - Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application Nos. 2222 of 2015 & 2242 of 2015
Decided On : 08-06-2015
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P. - 1993 Cri.L.J. 938, Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat - (2009) 5 SCC 283
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought bail based on the ground of parity, citing previous grants of bail to co-accused. The case involved a murder where the accused were alleged to have assaulted and killed the victim in a densely populated area.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused bail to the applicants, emphasizing the direct evidence against them and the specific allegations from the complainant. The court also highlighted the duty of both sides to bring circumstances of previous bail rejections to the notice of the judge and the requirement of discipline in considering bail applications.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the applicants to bail based on the principle of parity with previously granted bail to co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the principle of parity can be used when subsequent accused from the same crime seek bail, but it is essential for judges to consider the nature of evidence available against the applicant and the accused to whom bail is granted or refused. The court also stressed the need for consistency and discipline in bail decisions.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail applications, stating that the applicants failed to show a change in circumstances that would entitle them to bail.
1. Both the applications are filed under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation.
2. Previous application filed for bail by the applicants from both the proceedings bearing Criminal Application No.5007/2014 is decided by this Court, the undersigned, on 23-9-2014. The application is moved mainly on the ground that the other Hon'ble Judges have granted bail to the main accused and one more accused in subsequently filed applications. Main accused Sunil is granted bail by other Hon'ble Judge in Criminal Application No.1659 of 2015 by order dated 16-4-2015 and Nitin, another main accused who can be called as accused No.2 of the case was granted bail by the third Hon’ble Judge in Criminal Application No.6814/2014 by order dated 20-12-2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as the other two accused, who can be called as accused Nos.1 and 2, have got bail, present applicants also need to be granted bail. He submitted that the circumstance that bail was refused to the present applicant was brought to the notice of the other Hon’ble Judge in Sunil's matter and even after that the Hon’ble Judge granted bail to Sunil need to be considered. He placed reliance on a reported case of Allahabad High Court in 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 (Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P.).
3. The material collected by police shows that crime came to be registered on the basis of report given by eye witness Kailas Shinde. He is resident of the locality where the murder was committed. One Vitthalsingh Rajput is murdered and the charge sheet is filed against four persons. There is allegation that Vitthalsingh had illicit relation with the mother of Sunil. Allegations are made that on the night between 22-5-2014 and 23-5-2014 he saw Vitthalsingh in his house with his mother. After that Sunil started quarreling with Vitthalsingh and Vitthalsingh went out of Sunil's house out of fear of Sunil. He some how entered his own room which is adjacent to the room of Sunil and he closed the door from inside of that room.
4. There are allegations that Sunil and his associates then entered the room of Vitthalsingh. They virtually dragged Vitthalsingh by using force from his room and he was taken to the ground floor. Vitthalsingh some how escaped and started running. Vitthalsingh came towards the house of Kailas, the first informant. Vitthalsingh requested Kailas to give shelter and also clothes. Sunil and remaining three persons gave chase to Vitthalsingh and they also came there. Then the accused gave threat to Kailas to finish him also if he wanted to interfere. Then they took Vitthalsingh, but Vitthalsingh again started running. The accused gave chase. Kailas witnessed that one person having beard face, one of the applicants, was having a knife in his hand and some were having sticks. In presence of Kailas, Nitin, accused No.2, gave blow of knife to Vitthalsingh. Then the remaining accused also assaulted Vitthalsingh by using weapons. In the FIR Kailas mentioned that there were as many as five persons who were assaulting Vitthalsingh and one accused used iron bar also. Iron bar was in the hands of Sunil. According to Kailas so many blows were given to Vitthalsingh and Vitthalsingh died on the spot in the incident. FIR was given immediately after the incident.
5. Test Identification parade was held and in the T.I. parade Kailas identified present applicants as the two assailants who had taken part in the incident. The other witnesses who came before police they gave statements that the present applicants were seen by them in the company of Sunil.
6. The material collected against the applicants show that in thickly populated area, in the presence of many witnesses these assailants showed courage. They dragged Vitthalsingh out of his room, they gave chase to him. They gave threats to Kailas not to interfere and probably due to such threats other persons also did not dare to inter
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.