The Bombay High Court granted bail to the Applicant accused under Sections 201, 302, 392, 397, 44 and Section 37 (1) (3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act (MPA), read with section 4 (25) 27 of Arms Act (AA). The Court noted that prima facie evidence against the Applicant was insufficient to warrant further detention. The accused was charged with killing his live-in partner and disposing of her chopped body parts.

Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Considering totally decomposed body of the deceased, the identification of that needs to be decided during trial. However, prima facie, the material on record against the applicant is not sufficient at this stage to warrant his further detention…The applicant was arrested on 24th August 2021. The charges are yet to be framed. It is unlikely that the trial will be over in near future. On overall consideration of facts, the applicant has made out a case for release on bail”.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared for the Applicant, and Additional Public Prosecutor Amit A. Palkar appeared for the Respondent/State.

A Criminal Application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail in a case registered under MPA and AA. The prosecutor contended that the Applicant and the Deceased were in a love affair, but the Deceased refused to marry the Applicant. This led to a quarrel, during which the Applicant strangled the Deceased. The Applicant then bought two sacks and borrowed a tempo from a friend. He cut the body and disposed of the body parts in Pirangut and Lavasa Road.

The Court noted that the prosecution had not collected DNA samples from the deceased's family members. The body parts that were recovered were completely decomposed, and there were no blood stains in the tempo or at the place where the crime was allegedly committed. In this context, the Court asserted, “On perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that no DNA sample collected by the prosecution of Class-I heirs of the deceased. The body parts recovered were completely decomposed. Prima facie it appears that there were no blood stains in the tempo or at a place where alleged crime of cutting body into different parts was committed. The admissibility of Panchanama under Section 27 needs to be adjudicated during trial as the prosecution needs to be given opportunity to lead evidence about exact time of the Panchanama and the arrest and its effect”.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Application and granted bail to the Applicant.

Cause Title: Hanumant Ashok Shinde v State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download Order