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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.G. Bisht, J.
Nagesh Babaso Patil - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 2256 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate, H. J. Dedhia, Advocate

The decision emphasizes the importance of concrete evidence and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in bail applications.

Headnote:

Section 439 - Bail - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, 201 - Indian Evidence Act, Section 27

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had killed the deceased, who was suspected of having illicit relations with the applicant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence against the applicant was based on suspicion and lacked eyewitness testimony. It noted discrepancies in the statements and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to deny bail to the applicant and the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence and the presence of inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant with conditions to not tamper with the evidence and to attend the trial regularly.

JUDGMENT

V. G. Bisht, J. - The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 222 of 2020 registered with Kodoli Police Station, District-Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 It is the case of prosecution that the informant is a Police Patil of village Aawali. Applicant and one Sanjay Ganpat Patil are friends. There was rumour in the village that since last two years the wife of said Sanjay Patil, namely, Savita Sanjay Patil (deceased for short) was having illicit relations with the applicant. Even Sanjay Patil suspected on the character of the deceased and, therefore, there used to be quarrel between them.

3 It is alleged that since the deceased was missing and her body was found, initially the informant lodged the report against the husband of the deceased but later on, during the course of investigation it revealed that it was the applicant who had killed the deceased.

4 Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that initial FIR which was filed on 04/11/2020 by the informant -Police Patil was filed on the ground of suspicion only. Thereafter the informant again recorded her supplementary statement on 05/11/2020 wherein she alleged, on the basis of rumour emanating from the village, that deceased might have been killed by the applicant and accordingly requested to investigate the matter. According to learned Counsel, the only evidence against the applicant is the memorandum panchanama dated 07/11/2020 wherein the applicant purportedly had said that he would show the village-well where the dead body was thrown and as also the clothes he was wearing at the relevant time. But according to learned Counsel, this place was already known which is apparent from the statement of daughter and son of the deceased dated 07/11/2020 and 05/11/2020 respectively. According to learned Counsel, there is no eye witness to the incident nor it is the case of the prosecution that immediately before death, the applicant was seen in the company of the deceased. Thus for all these reasons, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, argued learned Counsel.

5 Mr. Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the submissions by contending that immediately before the incident the applicant had a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter the deceased was not seen and her body was found on the next morning. The learned APP also invited my attention to the statement of prosecution witness, namely, Vailashi Ganpati Patil to substantiate the submissions. Having regard to the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, argued learned APP.

6 Perused investigation papers. Admittedly the very first FIR lodged by the village Police Patil against the husband of deceased was on the ground of suspicion. Thereafter, immediately on the next day she again recorded her supplementary statement wherein she expressed her doubt against the applicant, as a person, who might have killed the deceased.

7 During the course of investigation, it appears that the applicant gave the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 07/11/2020 and showed his readiness to show the place where he had thrown dead body and also show the clothes wore by him at the time of incident. However, interestingly the village-well was known to the witnesses and it is apparent from the statements of daughter and son of the deceased dated 07/11/2020 and 05/11/2020 respectively. The statement of Kumari Trupti Sanjay Patil is recorded on 05/11/2020. An answer to question no. 29 shows that on 04/11/2020 the dead body of her mother was found floating in a village-well. Similar is the statement of Shreyas Sanjay Patil, son of the deceased. Both of these witnesses were knowing that village-well from where dead body was recovered. This being so there could not have been any discovery of the dead body from the said village-well at the in

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