Back
M. S. KARNIK
Muttana Anawalad Preently – Appellant
Versus
Police Inspector – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. R. Desai, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. This is an application for bail for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC. The applicant is accused no.4. On 17/1/2019 the body of the deceased was found in Anmod ghat. Death was due to strangulation. It was found that acid was poured over the face of the deceased to deface the deceased to conceal his identity.
4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused no.1 who happened to be the wife of deceased was having an extramarital affair with respondent no.2. Services of respondent no.2 were engaged for eliminating the deceased. The car which was used for ferrying the deceased belonged to the applicant. The car was recovered at the instance of the applicant.
5. Mr. Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor tried to contend that in view of the invocation of Sec. 120B of the IPC, this is a case where all the accused conspired together to kill the the deceased and therefore, the applicant should not be released on bail. It is further submitted that th
The court considered the length of custody, lack of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of a delayed trial in granting bail to the applicant.
The court affirmed that under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, the magistrate's discretion in denying bail is contingent upon justifiable reasons, balancing trial delays against the need to preserve justi....
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
