Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.438, S.41— Anticipatory bail - Prayer for - Offence of cheating - As per complainant, applicant allegedly promised him Swarn Bhasma for Rs.6,00,000, then, with 4-5 accused persons personated as police officers, assaulted and cheated him - Requirement under S.41 was not complied with by Investigating Officer - There were no grounds raised by investigating agency why custodial interrogation of applicant was required - Fact that applicant had already deposited amount hence custodial interrogation was not required - Bail granted.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
C. T. Ravikumar,
Prashant Kumar Mishra
, JJ
Sajeena Ikhbal v.
Mini Babu George
D.O.D : 17/10/2024
Appeal Allowed
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.166— Constitution of India , Art.136— Claim petition - Dismissal of - Challenge against - Claim petition was dismissed on ground that claimants had failed to prove that accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending car and to prove that car was involved in accident - Evidence on record showed that car had suffered damage - Car driver admitted that bus was 100 feet away when motorcycle hit car - Eyewitness had described the accident and driver of bus also stated about hearing sound of accident and nearby people telling him that car had hit the bike of deceased - In a motor accident case, witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the police had not recorded his statement during investigation - Involvement of car in accident was proved on the basis of evidence on record - Finding that car was not involved in accident was set aside and claim petition was allowed.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
B. R. Gavai,
Prashant Kumar Mishra,
K. V. Viswanathan
, JJJ
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v.
State of Maharashtra
D.O.D : 17/10/2024
Appeal Allowed
(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.366— Constitution of India , Art.134— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.302, S.307, S.201— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Murder, attempt to murder and disappearing of evidence - Testimony of solitary witness -Reliability - Prosecution case rested on evidence of solitary witness who was neighbour of deceased and accused - Statement of said witness was recorded after 6 days - Though witness had stated that after the incident, neighbours had come and evidence showed that he was conscious and oriented on the date of the incident, no neighbour was examined to corroborate his testimony - Witness could not identify hammer alleged to be the weapon of offence - Witness admitted that he gave his statement only after being informed by police that accused had committed crime - Testimony of witness was discarded as not reliable.
2019 (3) ABR (Cri) 274 (BOM)-Reversed(Paras181928)
(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.366— Constitution of India , Art.134— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.302, S.307, S.201— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Murder, attempt to murder and disappearing of evidence - Circumstantial evidence - After ocular testimony of solitary witness was discarded as unreliable, case was of circumstantial evidence - Hammer, the weapon of offence, was recovered at instance of accused from place which was accessible to all - It was improbable that hammer which was soaked in water for 3 days would still retain blood-stains - Place where accused had taken police party to show where he had concealed incriminating article was already within knowledge of police - Presence of blood-stains on clothes of appellant could not be said to be unnatural - Possibility of tampering with evidence of recovery could not be ruled out - Conviction cannot be based solely on circumstance of motive - Prosecution had failed to prove its case to an extent that every possible hypothesis except guilt of the accused could be ruled out - Conviction was set aside and reference for confirmation of death sentence was rejected.
2019 (3) ABR (Cri) 274 (BOM)-ReversedAIR 1984 SC 1622-Relied on(Paras252627)
Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Srinivas D. Sridhar
D.O.D : 16/10/2024
Appeal Dismissed
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.227— Discharge of accused - Legality - Offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and under PC Act - Allegation that accused, with object of cheating Bank, granted facilities to Company - Evidence on record showed that proposal had passed through Loan Advisory Committee which recommended same - Respondent's role started with signing the Memorandum after it was approved by the Chief General Manager (Credit) and the Executive Director- Accused's role was confined to signing memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in Management Committee meeting, which approved proposal - There was no evidence that any of co-accused other than bank officials ever met accused before sanction of proposal by Management Committee - Merely because entire proposal was processed and cleared within short span of time, no offence was made out against accused - Complicity of accused in offence was not made out - Discharge of accused was proper
Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) , S.24— Maintenance pendente lite - Grant of - Petitioner-husband was Sub-Inspector who lived comfortable lifestyle - Wife was entitled to a lifestyle similar to what she would have enjoyed in her matrimonial home - Petitioner's financial obligations, including loans and personal expenses, did not negate his responsibility to support his wife and minor child - Petitioner did not provide an updated salary slip or evidence to substantiate his claims of financial hardship - Grant of interim maintenance amounting at Rs.10,000 for wife and Rs.6,000 for minor child was reasonable considering petitioner's income and status.