Back
N. J. JAMADAR
Bharat Dhavala Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Application is preferred to enlarge the Applicant-accused on bail.
2. The Applicant is arraigned for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for having committed murder of his wife and caused disappearance of evidence with a view to screen himself from the legal punishment.
3. The marriage of the Applicant was solemnized with Pramila (deceased) two years prior to the occurrence. A month prior to the occurrence, the Applicant and the deceased had started to reside in Flat No.1002, C Wing, Mhada Building No.10, Pathardi Shivar, Nashik, the premises of Mr. Sachin Devram Zole, a nephew of Mr. Tanaji Kachare, the first informant. On 24/10/2020 at about 3.15 p.m., the first informant's sister called and informed the first informant that the Applicant had called and apprised her that the deceased was done to death while the Applicant had gone for work. After visiting the house of the deceased and noticing the situation thereat, including the condition of the body of the deceased, the first informant entertained suspicion about the veracity of the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the first informant lodged a report against the Applicant,
The judgment emphasizes the need for caution in relying on circumstantial evidence, particularly dog tracking, and highlights the importance of establishing a clear nexus between the accused and the ....
The decision emphasizes the importance of concrete evidence and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in bail applications.
The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the court i....
Service Matter - Minor Punishment - Appeal - As per Rules of 1991 a delinquent employee who is awarded minor punishments of censure entries under Rule 4 (b) can file an appeal under Rule 20 of Rules ....
Inconsistencies in witness statements can raise doubts about the credibility of the evidence and influence the court's decision on bail applications.
The court held that a hostile eyewitness significantly undermines the prosecution's case, warranting bail despite other circumstantial evidence.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
Judges emphasized that proof in circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in homicide cases, with a critical focus on the timing of alleged ev....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
