Vinayak Ramesh Appur v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cri. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3342 OF 2018 Vinayak Ramesh Appur ... Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.

--- Mr. Kuldeep S.Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State.

(Mr. Vijay Takke, PSI, Navghar Police Station, is present) --- CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : MARCH 07, 2019.

PC :

This is application for bail in CR No. I-37 of 2017, registered with Navghar Police Station, Dist. Thane, for offence under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The case of prosecution is that on 24.01.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., younger sister of the complainant namely Deepika went to School to pick up her daughter - Hetvi, where she met mother of the complainant. On 27.01.2018 (year may be 2017) at about 10.45 p.m., the complainant met one Kartik, who informed the complainant that phone of Deepika was not reachable. On enquiry with a friend of 1/3

Deepika namely Mansi, she stated that she was informed by one Vicky and Varun that Deepika was supposed to travel to Mahabaleshwar with Kartik. Kartik informed the complainant that he had not been to Mahabaleshwar with Deepak. Mansi informed the complainant that she had visited Deepak's house but the door was locked and there was no response on ringing door bell. Subsequently, it was found that Deepika and her daughter were lying dead in the house.

Prosecution case is that the applicant was acquainted with deceased and that the applicant was on visiting terms with her.

Applicant was arrested on 31.01.2017. On completing investigation, chargesheet is filed. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no strong evidence to show involvement of the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the crime.

Learned APP, however, submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show involvement of the applicant in the crime. Offence is of serious nature. It is the case of double murder. There is evidence of recovery of weapon at the instance of the applicant. There is recovery of bloodstained 2/3

clothes of the applicant and CCTV footage also show presence of the applicant in the vicinity of the crime. Perusal of documents on record show that, prima facie, case is made out against the applicant about his involvement in the crime. Deceased Deepika and her daughter were murdered. Knife is recovered from the possession of the applicant. Clothes of the applicant were bloodstained. C.C.T.V. footage shows inolvement of the applicant in the crime. Thus there is sufficient evidence against the Applicant. Hence, bail cannot be granted to the Applicant. Application is rejected.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) .....

3/3