SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Gopal - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another - Respondent
Criminal Application (Appln) No. 57 of 2017
Decided On : 23-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : J.M. Gandhi, Counsel.
For the Respondents: D.V. Chauhan, Counsel, N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 439(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135 - Arms Ac, 1959 - Sections 3, 4, and 25 - Applicant is challenging grant of bail - Cognizable offence – Anticipatory bail - Prosecution case on which was a day of was kept at the company at his hand - Therefore at in night his son (injured) came along with various articles required for performing - At that time deceased was present in house dropped the first informant and thereafter went towards the house for bringing – Held, Similarly when first bail application of non-applicant No .2 was withdrawn and when Trial was not commenced non-applicant No.2 did not approach to Court below but filed an application before this Court - It does not lie in mouth of non-applicant No .2 at this stage that it was not a subsequent event - Non-commencement of Trial would have been a subsequent event - Therefore that time he could have approached to Trial Court - However he chose a path to this Court by filing Criminal Application which was considered on its own merits and when was about to dismiss same application withdrew same - Honourable Apex Court in case of State cited supra has considered fact that when Division Bench of this Court was not with non-applicant therein and when that application under Section 482 was not pressed it was not open for non-applicant therein to approach before Single Judge of this Court and obtain order which was assailed before Honourable Apex Court by State which is set aside - Conspectus of all chronology events as described in detail hereinabove court am of view that when application itself was not maintainable before Trial Court there was no occasion for learned Judge of Court below to consider case of non-applicant No.2 on merits and ought not to have granted bail in favor of non-applicant - Criminal application is allowed and disposed of

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi for the applicant, learned counsel Shri D.V. Chauhan for non-applicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. By the present application, the applicant is challenging grant of bail in favour of nonapplicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar vide order dated 20.9.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge3 at Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847/2017.

4. Though the challenge is set up to grant of bail by the applicant on the grounds of (i) judicial propriety and (ii) on merits, I feel that this application can be allowed on the first ground itself. Since this Court is granting the prayer of the applicant on that count alone, the Court is not going in detail about the case of non-applicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar on its own merits or demerits as it is my considered view that merits and demerits of the case of non-applicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar were already considered by this Court (Coram : P.N. Deshmukh, J.) on 24.1.2017.

5. Following are the facts which give rise to the present application.

6. On 24.10.2014, Gopal s/o Muneshwar Singh approached to Kanhan Police Station, District Nagpur and lodged his report. The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, the police station authorities at Kanhan registered the offence vide Crime No.139/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, and 25 of the Arms Ac, 1959 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

7. As per the prosecution case, on 23.10.2014, which was a day of 'Diwali', 'Pooja' was kept at the company at his hand. Therefore, at 10:20 in the night, his son Sunny Singh (injured) came along with various articles required for performing the 'Pooja.' At that time, Shital Singh (deceased) was present in the house. Sunny Singh (injured) dropped the first informant and, thereafter, went towards the house for bringing Shital Singh (deceased). However, since Priest was not available, he, on the motorcycle of one worker Rajkumar Gondane, went to village Kandri. At 11:00 O'clock in the night, Sunny Singh (injured) made a phone call on the cellphone of the first informant and informed him that near 'PanShop' of one Rampal, Shital was attacked by Sooraj Gomekar and his brother Amar Gomekar by using gun and when he tried to intervene, Sooraj Gomekar, non-applicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar, and others assaulted on him by means of sticks and swords. He also received a phone call from Sunny Singh by which it was informed that when Sunny along with his other friends were taking Shital to 'Aasha Nursing Home, they were again encircled by the accused persons and again made a second assault on them due to which Sunny received severe head injuries. It was also informed by Sunny to the first informant that he should reach immediately along with the police and he has no hope that Shital will survive. Ultimately, the first informant reached to the 'Aasha Nursing Home' and from there he took Shital and Sunny to 'Life Line Hospital' and they were admitted in the said hospital.

8. During the medical treatment, the doctor declared Shital as dead and when first informant Gopal made enquiries with his surviving son Sunny, it was informed that accused persons, including present non-applicant No.2 Sharad Gomekar, on old enmity and on account of money transactions, assaulted by means of deadly weapons like gun, swords, and sticks.

9. The accused persons were arrested and it was informed to this Court that as on today two accused persons by name Amar Gomekar and Bhuru are still absconding.

10. The arrested accused persons filed different applications before the Court below, after filing of the chargesheet.

11. It is stated before me that one accused Taroon Jain is






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top