Bombay High Court
Niraj S/O Shyamlal Sayyam vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 apeal21.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2021
(NIRAJ SHYAMLAL SAYYAM...VS.. STATE OF MAH.THR.PSO PS SALEKASA & ANR.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 13, 2021.
Heard.
2. Crime No.150 of 2018 is registered against two
accused and one juvenile in conflict with law for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 404 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
3. The appellant is arrested on 4 th July 2018 and is
in jail since then. The appellant had filed application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came
to be rejected by the Sessions Court on 25 th July 2019. The
appellant again moved an application under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure which is dismissed by the
impugned order dated 16th October 2020.
4. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that
the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence,
mainly on the statements of two witnesses who allegedly had
last seen the victim with the accused, however, the
2 apeal21.21.odt
statements of those two witnesses show that they had seen
the victim with the accused on 1 st July 2018, whereas the
incident occurred in the night between 2 nd and 3rd July 2018.
It is further argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant
that though the prosecution has come out with the case that
the weapon is recovered from the appellant, Forensic Report
shows that the finger prints on the weapon do not match with
the finger prints of the appellant. Reliance is also placed on
the fact that the co-accused is released on bail as per the
judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 316 of
2019 on 16th April 2019. It is further argued that any other
crime is not registered against the appellant and that
investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed and there is
no reason to keep the appellant in jail.
5. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for
the appellant and the learned A.P.P., we have examined the
material placed on record. The statement of father of the
victim shows that the victim had gone with the appellant on
1st July 2018 and had not returned. Though the submission
made by the learned Advocate for the appellant that further
custody of the appellant is not required by the Investigating
Agency, prima-facie appears to be justified, looking to the
facts of the case and after going through the impugned order
passed by the Sessions Court, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, we
direct the Sessions Court to conduct the trial expeditiously
and conclude it till 15th June 2021.
3 apeal21.21.odt
While allowing Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2019
and directing that the co-accused Pramod Babulal Rahangdale
be released on bail, this Court had directed that he shall
attend all the dates of the trial, failing which the learned
Sessions Judge shall consider the aspect of cancellation of
bail. If the co-accused Pramod fails to attend on any date of
the trial, without seeking exemption from the Sessions Court,
the Sessions Court may pass appropriate orders considering
the absence of the co-accused Pramod as breach of condition
imposed by this Court while directing his release on bail.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) ( Z.A.HAQ, J.)
RRaut..
