Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Hotel Owner in Murder Case Where Role Limited to Alleged Instruction to Shift Body. Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Under Section 302 or 201 IPC as Applicant Was Not Present at Scene and FIR Does Not Support Allegation of Giving Instructions.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Appaso @ Kumar Kallappa Kumasage, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release in connection with C.R. No.135 of 2018 registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station, District Sangli, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from an incident on 17 July 2018 at New Ratna Delux Hotel in Miraj, where the deceased Samadhan Mante was assaulted by one Jakir Ajmuddin Jamadar and two associates following a quarrel. The first informant, Balkrishna Katkar, a barman at the hotel, stated that after the assault, the deceased fell outside the hotel in a pool of blood, and due to rain water mixing with blood, the body was shifted outside the hotel gate by the informant and other staff. The applicant, who was the owner of the hotel, was not present at the time of the incident. The prosecution alleged that the applicant instructed the manager to keep the dead body outside the gate, thereby committing an offence under Section 201 IPC. The court noted that the FIR did not prima facie indicate that the applicant gave such instructions, and even if assumed, there was no evidence of intent to cause disappearance of evidence. The court held that the applicant was not an assailant nor alleged to have assisted in the crime, and his mere ownership of the hotel did not establish involvement. Considering the lack of prima facie case and that the applicant was not required for further investigation, the court granted bail on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - Applicant, owner of hotel where murder occurred, was not present and not alleged to be assailant or abettor - Only allegation is that he instructed manager to shift dead body outside gate - FIR does not prima facie support this allegation - Held that applicant is entitled to bail as there is no prima facie case of murder or destruction of evidence (Paras 4-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant, who was not present at the scene and only allegedly instructed shifting of the body, should be granted bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and shall attend the trial regularly.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Section 201 IPC
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Role of accused
  • No direct involvement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 50

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2178 OF 2018

2018-09-24

Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil with Ms Megha Bajoria for the Applicant, Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent State

Appaso @ Kumar Kallappa Kumasage

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case

Remedy Sought

Applicant sought bail for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC

Filing Reason

Applicant was arrested in connection with a murder that occurred at his hotel, though he was not present at the scene

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC when he was not present at the scene and the only allegation is that he instructed shifting of the body Whether there is a prima facie case against the applicant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not present and not involved in the assault; the only allegation is that he instructed to shift the body, which is not supported by FIR State opposed bail, but the court noted that the applicant was not an assailant and not required for further investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Bail under Section 439 CrPC can be granted when the accused is not directly involved in the crime, there is no prima facie case, and the allegations are not supported by the FIR. Mere ownership of premises where crime occurred does not establish involvement in murder or destruction of evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

It is not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant is either an assailant or that he had assisted the assailant in commission of the crime. The first information report does not prima facie indicate that the Applicant had given instructions to shift the body of Samadhan Mante outside the gate of the hotel. Considering the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the Applicant, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Procedural History

FIR lodged on 17.7.2018; applicant arrested; bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC; heard on 24.9.2018 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 201, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Hotel Owner in Murder Case Where Role Limited to Alleged Instruction to Shift Body. Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Under Section 302 or 201 IPC as Applicant Was Not Present at Scene and FIR Does Not Support Allegatio...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Collector's Order Declaring No Right to Gairan Land. Encroachment on Government Land Cannot Be Regularized Without Following Due Process Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.