Akshay @ Prakash Bhausaheb Ovhal v. The State Of Maharashtra
1/4 nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2132 OF 2016 Akshay @Prakash Bhausaheb Ovhal ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1011 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2132 OF 2016 Mohammad Yasin Mobin Sheikh ...Applicant/Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Akshay @Prakash Bhausaheb Ovhal ...Applicant/Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Ms.P.P.Kakade, i/b Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar, for the Applicant Ms.Rutuja Ambekar. A.P.P. for the Respondent-State Mr.S.D.Chavan, for the Applicant/Intervener.
P.I - A.V.More, Dehu Road Police Station, Pune. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 10th APRIL, 2017
2/4 P.C. :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent - State.
2.
By this application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.81 of 2016 registered with the Dehu Road Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.
Perused the papers. The incident in question has taken place on the intervening night of 6th and 7th March, 2016. The applicant alongwith other co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the deceased. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The evidence against the applicant is that he was last seen in the company of the deceased by 3 to 4 witnesses at around 9.00 p.m., on 6th March, 2016. The last seen evidence shows that the deceased was on a motorcycle of the coaccused and the present applicant was also on the motorcycle alongwith the deceased. The eye-witnesses have stated that they had seen the applicant
3/4 and the deceased going towards Renuka Mangal Karyalaya at around 9.00 p.m. On the next day the deceased was found dead on a empty spot behind the Renuka Mangal Karyalaya. There is an extra-judicial confession made by the one co-accused to Gautam Patekar and Shubham Dudbhate. The applicant's name has been disclosed by the said co-accused. 4.
Considering the material on record i.e. of last seen and extrajudicial confession made by the co-accused, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
5.
Accordingly, the Application for bail is rejected and disposed of as such.
6.
It is made clear, that the observations made herein, are primafacie, for the purpose of deciding this application and the learned Judge shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
4/4 7.
In view of the disposal of the Bail Application No.2132 of 2016, the Intervention Application being Criminal Application No.1011 of 2016 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)