Bombay High Court
Miraj @ Shahid Siraj Tamboli vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
bipin prithiani
1
915-ia-967.19.doc
BIPIN
DHARMENDER
Digitally signed by
BIPIN DHARMENDER
PRITHIANI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRITHIANI Date: 2023.02.16
11:25:14 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2016
Miraj @ Shahid Siraj Tamboli ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
******
Mr. Veerdhaval Deshmukh, Appointed Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
******
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C. :-
. By order dated 4th January, 2023, as the earlier counsel was not
appearing, this Court has appointed Mr. Veerdhaval Deshmukh to assist
the Court in the matter.
2. This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Mr. Deshmukh, has placed on record following submissions :
(a) In view of judgment of the Apex Court in matter of
Suleman v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh delivered in Miscellaneous
Application No. 764 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of
bipin prithiani
915-ia-967.19.doc
2022 decided on 15th September, 2022.
(b) Applicant having almost completed 9 years of his period
of actual detention, he is entitled to be released.
4. In addition, his contentions are the evidence of PW1, PW2 and
PW3 who are claiming to be eye-witnesses to the incident if
appreciated, PW1 is unable to establish the motive against the
applicant. According to him, after having gone through the evidence of
PW2 and PW3, it can be inferred that the presence of said witnesses on
the spot is under cloud.
5. He would further urge that the role attributed to the applicant is
that of use of weapon viz rod and that being so, the Court may consider
the prayer for release of the applicant.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of by relying on the evidence of
PW1, PW2 and PW3 who are eye-witnesses to the incident. According
to her, there is strong evidence available on record against the
applicant.
7. With the assistance, we have perused the testimony of PW1, who
in cross-examination has admitted that he was not aware about the
complaint made by the deceased to the applicant about the quality
communal. As such, prima-facie it appears that the motive was not
established.
bipin prithiani
915-ia-967.19.doc
8. Apart from above, the fact remains that the applicant till date has
undergone already 9 years of imprisonment and considering the
remission, he has already completed period of 10 years.
9. The role attributed to the applicant as stated herein above is that
of use of rod.
10. In this background, we consider it appropriate to grant prayer for
suspension of sentence and direct to release the applicant on bail.
11. The applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
12. The applicant, till the final hearing of the appeal, shall remain
outside the jurisdiction of the Police Station.
13. Application stands disposed of.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
