Dismissed

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jun 2014BA/88/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, rejected the bail application of Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve. The court held that the applicant's presence among assailants was clearly established by the FIR and witness statements showing he assaulted the victim with an iron rod, precluding bail. The court distinguished the case from a related bail order involving a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant not released on bail.

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

tilak 1/2 (901)BA-88-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.88 of 2014

¶5

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Kaushik M. Mhatre, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent State. Mr.Santosh Saroj, Advocate for the First Informant.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 12^th JUNE, 2014. ---

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard Mr. Mhatre, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.Tidke, learned APP for the State. Heard Mr.Santosh Saroj, learned counsel for the intervenor i.e. the First Informant.

¶10

2 The applicant's presence among the assailants has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report itself. The First Informant is an eye witness to the incident. Apart from this, there are statements of other eye witnesses, which indicate that the applicant was one of the assailants, and that he had assaulted the victim – Shivkanth Yadav – with an iron rod which he was holding at the time of the incident.

¶11

tilak 2/2 (901)BA-88-14

¶12

3 The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Informant, though has named the applicant in the First Information Report, has not attributed any role to the applicant. It is submitted that such role came to be attributed only in the supplementary statement of the First Informant recorded on 16^th December 2012 i.e. after a gap of about 1 month and 10 days. Though this appears to be correct, as aforesaid, there are statements of other witnesses recorded immediately after the incident and these statements do implace the applicant also.

¶13

4 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one coaccused – Pappu Dokhare – has been released on bail by this Court (Criminal Bail Application No.820/13), and that the case of the present applicant is similar. I have gone through the order passed by this Court releasing the said accused on bail. I find that the said accused was merely described as 'Pappu' and his identity was not got fixed by the Investigating Agency before arresting the accused 'Pappu Dokhare'. Moreover, though the First Informant had said in the First Information Report that, that person was known to him only as 'Pappu', in the supplementary statement, a mention was made to 'Pappu Dokhare'. It is basically for that reason the case of Papu Dokhare was thought fit for bail. The same advantage cannot be claimed by the present applicant.

¶14

5 Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

6 Application is rejected.

¶16

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Yellapa Kunchikarve 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Chandrakant Chalake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swapnil Sayaji Waje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pima Kasana Mavi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Niwas Sadashiv Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samit Dilip Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Daji Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.