Bombay High Court
Sunil Tukaram Mane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 September, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, G. A. Sanap
Digitally signed by SMITA
SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVES
GONSALVES Date: 2021.09.24 11:05:09
+0530
sg 1/4 23. ia1967-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1967 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.646 OF 2021
Sunil Tukaram Mane .. Applicant/Appellant
(Original Accused in S.C. No.122/2018)
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
(Original Complainant)
....
Mr. Sandeep Mishra, for the Applicant.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for State.
....
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2021.
P.C:-
The Appellant has made this application for bail in the
Criminal Appeal No.646 of 2021. The Appellant has been convicted
by the Sessions Judge, Thane for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one month vide order
dated 28 May 2021.
1 of 4
sg 2/4 23. ia1967-21.doc
2. The Appellant was tried for committing the murder of his
brother Akshay on 12 October 2017. The grounds of challenge to the
impugned judgment and order have been set out in the memo of
appeal. In the bail application, it is the case of the Appellant that there
is no iota of evidence to prove the charge against him. The Sessions
Judge, according to the Appellant, has convicted him by drawing
inferences on the irrelevant facts and circumstances. The mother of the
Appellant is the informant. In the report lodged by her, she has stated
that the deceased Appellant, she herself and her husband were staying
together. The deceased was addicted to liquor. The deceased would
make demand of money to satisfy his thirst for liquor. On the date of
the incident, the deceased demanded Rs.500/- from the informant. She
refused to pay the same. The deceased abused her. After some time,
he came back in drunken condition and started abusing them. He
abused the Appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the
Appellant lost his control and inflicted a blow on the head of the
deceased with wooden log. The deceased sustained serious injuries and
he ultimately succumbed to the same.
3. The Sessions Judge, on going through the evidence led by
the prosecution, found the said evidence convincing and reliable to
accept the case of the prosecution. Learned Advocate for the Appellant
submitted that the evidence is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of
the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Advocate took us
2 of 4
sg 3/4 23. ia1967-21.doc
through the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, based on
the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Advocate
submitted that on the basis of such a shakey and unreliable evidence,
the Appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced as above.
The learned Advocate submitted that no purpose would be served by
keeping the accused behind the bars. The learned APP, on the basis of
the evidence, submitted that the same is sufficient to accept the case of
the prosecution.
4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submission.
We have also gone through the material evidence and the judgment
passed by the Sessions Judge. It is apparent on the face of record that
the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence of the
neighbour seeing the Accused/ entering the house with blood stained
clothes. The C.A. report relied upon by the prosecution, in our
opinion, would be of no help to the prosecution in as much as the
blood test was inconclusive. In our opinion, considering the facts and
circumstances, it would not be proper to keep the accused behind the
bars during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal is also not likely to
be taken up for hearing immediately. We are of the opinion that the
Appellant has made out a case for releasing him on bail.
5. Hence following order:
3 of 4
sg 4/4 23. ia1967-21.doc
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant by
the Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 28 May
2021 in Sessions Case No.122 of 2018 is hereby
suspended.
(iii) The Appellant/Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and surety in the like
amount forthwith, if not required in any other crime.
(iv) The Criminal Application stands disposed of.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
4 of 4
