Wasiullah Zabiullah Siddiqui v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Criminal Application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
Judgment
.... Mr.K.P.Anilkumar, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. P.C.:
#1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State.
#2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.355 of 2007 of Powai Police Station. The said case is under Section 302 of IPC.
#3. The applicant has not been named in the FIR. However, thereafter the complainant and other witnesses have identified the applicant in the T.I.P. In the supplementary statement the witness Shabnam named the present applicant. The applicant is residing in the same locality as that of the complainant and the eye witnesses. Though ..(2).. the applicant was residing near the house of the complainant and eye witnesses, the complainant has not named him in the FIR so also the eye witness has not named him in the first statement and only thereafter in the supplementary statement the eye witness has named the present applicant. Both the witnesses in their first statement have not stated that the applicant is residing nearby. They have clearly stated that some unknown person has assaulted the deceased. As the applicant is residing near the house of the complainant if the applicant was really involved in the said case, at the first instance his name would have been stated or at least it would have been stated that the person residing nearby was the assailant and some description would have been given by the complainant and the eye witness Shabnam.
#4. The learned APP has pointed out that one Smt. Shabbunur @ Parvin Afaq Khan has stated in the statement that the applicant was one of the assailants. However, it is seen that the said statement is recorded after a delay of seven days. Looking to all these aspects, I find much merit in the submission that the applicant has been falsely ..(3).. implicated in the present case as an afterthought. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
#5. The applicant - Wasiullah Zabiullah Siddiqui to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to Powai Police Station once in a week, till conclusion of the trial.
#6. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Criminal Application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Jul 2008. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
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.