Hasruddin Munnan Mallick v. The State of Maharashtra
Judgment
Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar, for Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent-State. .... P.C.: CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2011.
#1. This is an application for bail by the applicant who had participated in the assault on the victim, who died as a result of the said assault. Police had come up with the case that the victim’s husband himself had engaged one Rajnikant, who in turn engaged the present applicant and another person to commit the murder of his wife. The victim was assaulted very much in presence of her husband. One Sudhakar Ramakant Pandloskar, a morning walker happened to come to the spot of incident at that time and found the applicant and co-accused going away on a motorcycle. He was told by the victim’s husband that the persons on the motorcycle had assaulted his 2
23.ba-724-11 wife. The motorcycle was seen by Sanjay Gandhi. Both these witnesses identified the applicant in the test identification Parade. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the report about DNA does not show complicity of the applicant. The significance of DNA, finger printing in this case is not clear. Considering the evidence collected and the fact that this applicant who was seen on the spot by the two witnesses has been identified by them, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.