Allowed

Amar Varisarya Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Sept 2014BA/1417/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder charges under IPC Sections 302 and 34, the High Court of Bombay decided to release the applicant on bail, noting that eye witnesses did not place him directly in the assault causing the victim's death.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- with sureties and compliance with conditions regarding evidence tampering, address changes, and court attendance.

Amar Varisarya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

ba.1417.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1417 OF 2014

¶5

Amar Varisarya Kale ... Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Rahul Ghaygude for the Applicant Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.S.N. Nikam, ASI, Pusegav police station, present

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The application is moved for bail as the applicant is prosecuted for the offence of murder under section 302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.57 of 2013 registered at Pusegaon police station, Satara. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident of assault has taken place on 6.6.2013 in the evening. One Umya Latya Kale was assaulted and he lost his life due to that assault. It is the case of the prosecution that on that day, the applicant/accused and the co-accused had dispute with one Rejas Bhosale and he was beaten by the applicant/accused and the other co-accused. So he was admitted in the hospital. Umya Kale questioned the co-accused and the applicant/accused as to why they assaulted Rejas Bhosale and therefore they started quarrelling and fighting. At that time,

¶13

1 / 4

¶14

ba.1417.2014.doc

¶15

as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant/accused and the other co-accused Zakir Kale and Anil Kale held the deceased and one Nikal Kale gave blow of the knife on the rear side of the left thigh. He started bleeding profusely and thereafter his wife arrived there. Umya disclosed the incident to his wife Rashili and at that time, the co-accused Zakir made him to sit on the motor cycle and took him at the dispensary of Dr.Khot and dropped him in front of the dispensary and ran away. Thereafter, Umya Kale was declared dead.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused Amar Kale though was present at the time of the incident and though has taken the deceased in the injured condition to the clinic of Dr.Khot and dropped him there and ran away, he did not assault the deceased. He did not play any role. It was a sudden fight. He was not armed with any weapon. He relied on the statements of the two eye witnesses namely, Jalinder and Mallari Chavan.

¶17

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She submitted that the applicant was present at the time of the assault. He disclosed to his wife how the incident has taken place and if the incident is construed, the applicant alongwith the other accused Zakir Kale, held the deceased and thereafter Nikal Kale assaulted him.

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

ba.1417.2014.doc

¶20

Perused the statements of the witnesses especially the eye witnesses Jalindar and Mallari. These witnesses were present when the quarrel and the assault took place. It shows that they all were talking and started quarreling and fighting. It shows that Nikal Kale alone assaulted the deceased with stabs. Perused the death certificate which shows the cause of death as over bleeding and there is no mention of other causes like throttling or any other injury on his person. It appears from the statement of the eye witnesses that the applicant/accused did not pay any role towards holding or assaulting the deceased. The incident has taken place on 6.6.2013. The applicant was arrested on 8.6.2013 and he is in prison.

¶21

In this view of the matter, I allow the application on the following terms:

¶22

i) The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; ii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall not indulge into any criminal activity while on bail;

¶23

iii) In the event the applicant changes his residence, he shall communicate the new address alongwith the documentary proof to the concerned police station;

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

ba.1417.2014.doc

¶26

iv) The applicant shall make himself available at all the hearings of appeal in the Sessions Court.

¶27

Application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶28

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

4 / 4

Amar Varisarya Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Varisarya Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Prabhakar Bhande Vs State of Maharashtra

Amar Varisarya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhujangrao Bhaurao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra