Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named accused but he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and, therefore, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the complicity of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence is to be examined in the light of parameters laid by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622. However, up to this stage, none of the parameters laid down in the aforementioned judgement is satisfied against the applicant. No strong motive for committing the crime in question has emerged against applicant either. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of co-accused Bhole. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the role of causing fatal head injury upon the deceased is assigned to named accused Bhole. As per the material collected up to this stage, applicant can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 201 IPC. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2023. As such he has undergone four months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, except for the facts noted above, no other incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1