Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Anil Vithal Kale

Bombay HC12 Dec 2014APPLN/220/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State of Maharashtra filed a bail cancellation application against Anil Vithal Kale, the original accused in a murder case. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the Sessions Judge had not granted bail mechanically and the provisions of IPC Section 34 were inapplicable to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the respondent was not cancelled; the application for cancellation stood rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Anil Vithal Kale — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

34-APPLN-220.2013

¶2

sjs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2013

¶4

The State of Maharashtra.... Applicant
Vs.
Anil Vithal Kale.... Respondent

¶5

Ms A.A. Mane, APP, for the Applicant-
State.

¶6

Mr. Rupesh Zade for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶8

DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2014

¶9

P.C:

¶10

1.By this application, the prosecution
seeks cancellation of bail granted to the
respondent/original accused No.1 in the charge-

¶11

sheet submitted by Daund Police Station,
District Pune for commission of offences under
Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 504 and 506 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC. The said police station
had accordingly charge-sheeted the applicant as

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

sjs 34-APPLN-220.2013

¶14

a result of investigation of Crime No.205 of
2012, registered with the said police station
upon the FIR lodged by one Kiran Dattatraya
Kale on 21-10-2012, at about 18:35 hours,
regarding an incident which had occurred on the
same day at about 1:30 p.m. at Kale Vasti,
Khadki in which all the charge-sheeted accused
are said to have assaulted in all three
persons, i.e. deceased Jalindar Kale and one
Machindra Kale.

¶15

2.The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 30-1-2013 has released
the applicant on bail.

¶16

3. Ms A.A. Mane, learned APP, canvassed

¶17

that the Court of Sessions, Baramati, without
taking into consideration the gravity of the
offences, mechanically granted bail to the
applicant. It is urged that the Court of

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

sjs 34-APPLN-220.2013

¶20

Sessions missed the fact that all the accused

¶21

came to the spot together. It is urged that the

¶22

Court of Sessions ignored the fact that the

¶23

applicant had assaulted one Machindra Kale and
that he was armed with a weapon like a stick.

¶24

The learned APP, thus, contended that since the
bail being mechanically granted in such serious
offences without applying mind, the same
deserves to be cancelled. It is submitted that
the Court of Sessions committed an error in
taking account of the affidavit filed by
injured Machindra Kale to the effect that the
applicant had not assaulted him and ignored the
fact of there being four eye-witnesses to the
incident in question.

¶25

4.A careful perusal of the order

¶26

assailed in this application reveals that the

¶27

Court of Sessions has duly taken into
consideration the fact as to who had assaulted

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

sjs 34-APPLN-220.2013

¶30

the deceased Jalindar Kale. It has also taken

¶31

into consideration the fact of both the
deceased being stabbed by accused No.3 and thus
had come to the conclusion that the applicant
had no role to play in committing their murder.

¶32

5.Though the prosecution has sought

¶33

cancellation of bail, the entire charge-sheet
and/or statement of the witnesses has not been
annexed with the application. However, even the
learned APP has not made any submission to the
effect of the applicant having assaulted the
persons who ultimately succumbed to death. A
perusal of the FIR also does not reveal any act

¶34

of omission or commission amounting to an overt
act committed on the part of the applicant in
committing the said murders. The order reveals
that after assessing the material on record,

¶35

the Court of Sessions has come to the
conclusion of provisions of Section 34 of the

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

sjs 34-APPLN-220.2013

¶38

IPC being not applicable to the case of the
applicant.

¶39

6.Thus, considering the reasoning given

¶40

in the order granting bail, it is difficult to
accept that either the same was passed
mechanicallyorwithouttakinginto

¶41

consideration the material available on record.
It is settled legal position that consideration
for grant of bail and consideration for
cancellation of bail are altogether different.

¶42

7.Having regard to all the aforesaid
aspects and except submitting bail being
improperly granted, no further material being
placed before this Court warranting for
cancelling the bail, it is difficult to accept
the prayer for cancellation of bail.

¶43

8.Resultantly, there being no merit in

Page 5 of 6

sjs

34-APPLN-220.2013

the application, it stands rejected.

¶48

 (P.D. KODE, J.)

¶49

Page 6 of 6

The State of Maharashtra v. Anil Vithal Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Anil Vithal Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amol Shriram Shirodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmraj Shankar Pharande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Arjun Waghmare Vs Jyoti Satish Waghmare and Anr.

Mathew Joseph Vargis and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jamshed Vafadar Khodai Vs Virendra Kaur Khodai and Anr.

Mohan Ramesh Pardeshi Vs Vilas Murlidhar Kashmire and Anr.