Allowed

Jaideep Sharad Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jan 2017APPA/85/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2017, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, considering an application for suspension of sentence and bail, allowed the accused to be released on bail with a P.R. bond pending the final hearing of his appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempted murder.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; accused released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/-. Appeal admitted for final hearing.

Jaideep Sharad Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Rng 1

¶2

5-85.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2017 in

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.49 OF 2017

¶5

Jaideep Sharad Kulkarni … .. Appellant vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Saurabh Raut a/w Mr.Tanaya Goswami and Ms.Sneha Sanap I/b Mr.Ajinkya Jaibhave for Applicant Mr.Amit Palkar APP for State-Respondent

¶7

CORAM: A.M.BADAR, J DATE: 27 JANUARY 2017

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This is an application for suspension of the sentence and

¶10

releasing the Accused/Applicant during the pendency of the Appeal filed by him which is admitted for Final Hearing today. The Applicant/Accused has been convicted for the offence under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.

¶11

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant/Accused. He argued that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is accepted, then also an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out against the Applicant/Accused. For this

¶12

5-85.17

¶13

Rng 2

¶14

purpose, he drew my attention to the evidence of injured victim as well as that of PW 9 Dr.Rajendra Dattatraya Dusane.

¶15

The learned APP opposed this Application by

¶16

contending that evidence on record shows that there was an attempt to commit the murder of Mahendra Kamble.

¶17

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the impugned Judgment and order apart from the deposition of witnesses. The incident in question took place at the liquor shop.The cause of giving rise to the incident is accidental push by PW 1 Mahendra Manmothe to one of the accused persons. Allegation is are that the accused and co-accused attempted to commit the murder of PW 2. The evidence of Mahendra Kamble shows that after the incident he became unconscious on the spot itself. What is material is the intention. Prima facie, if really accused persons intended to commit the death of PW 2 Mahendra Kamble then nothing prevented them from prosecuting further assault on the victim whose leg was fractured. So far as present accused is concerned, the main act of hitting the injured with stones is not attributed to him. A short sentence is imposed on the

¶18

Rng 3 5-85.17

¶19

Applicant/Accused. Disposal of the Appeal will take its own time. The sentence imposed on the Applicant is suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- in the like amount.

¶20

(A.M.BADAR, J)

¶21

5-85.17

¶22

Rng 4

Jaideep Sharad Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaideep Sharad Kulkarni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Pandurang Patil Vs Pradip Ramchandra Kakade and Anr.

Dr Poonam Gopal Rohira and Anr. Vs Maya Kanhaiyalal Rohra and Anr.

Shivaji Pandurang Patil Vs Pradip Ramchandra Kakade and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra Vs Parmeshwar Bacchu Tiwari and Ors.

Gautam Kisanrao Mudgal Vs State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Bharat Pardeshi Vs Mangala Chandrakant Pardeshi and Anr.