The application is moved for bail. The applicant / accused is facing charges under section 302, 182, 120B r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Sushila Mhakavekar, accused No.3, is the first informant pursuant to which an offence was registered at C.R. No.75 of 2013 with Laxmipuri police station, Kolhapur. One amar Vasant Mhakavekar, who was the son of the informant and accused No.3 Sushila, used to drink liquor and harass his mother. He was married and had become a father 3 to 4 months prior to the incident. As he used to drink and harass his mother, the accused No.3, with the help of neighbouring lady i.e., accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy to finish her son. For that purpose, the applicant/accused was engaged on contract basis, who strangulated Amar after giving him liquor.

1 / 2

ba.1349.2014.doc

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent; there is no evidence against him and there is no nexus between the applicant/accused and the strangulation of the deceased. He submitted that other two co-accused i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, who in fact, are facing charges of conspiracy, are released on bail. He submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant/accused and therefore, he be released on bail.

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She relied on the statement of witnesses and also the informant. She submitted that it is the accused who has acted as a contract killer and the prosecution has evidence against her.

Perused the FIR; so also the statements of Sushmita Amar Mhakavekar, wife of the deceased and Rupali, the sister of the deceased and also perused the post mortem report which shows the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. In view of the statements of the witnesses, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant/accused of the conspiracy and the murder.

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶17

2 / 2

Amar Tanaji Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief