Allowed

Hariprasad Kalmesh Kolkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2017APPLN/250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 250 of 2017, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, granted regular bail to the applicant charged with murder. The court held that the case relied on circumstantial evidence did not remotely connect the applicant to the crime and thus granted bail subject to surety and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing Rs. 25,000/- PR bond with one or two sureties, with conditions against influencing witnesses.

Hariprasad Kalmesh Kolkar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

250.17crapln

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2017

¶5

Hariprasad Kalpesh Kolkar,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Koli Samaj No.2, Vijapur Road,
Saiphul, Solapur...APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station
Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶8

..RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicant;
Mr S.N. Morampalle, Addl. Public Prosecutor for
respondent

¶10

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
 DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2017

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

In Crime No.246 of 2015, registered with

¶13

Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, for
offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the

¶14

applicant, who was arrested on 7th August, 2016, is
seeking regular bail.

¶15

Amongst other grounds, a ground is raised

¶16

2.

¶17

250.17crapln

¶18

(2)

¶19

that the applicant is impleaded as accused based on
circumstantial evidence. According to Mr. Salunke,
learned Counsel for the applicant, there are no
criminal antecedents, investigation in the matter
is over, charge sheet is already filed and as such,
the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

3.He would invite attention of this Court to
the statements of two witnesses namely Rohit Jadhav
and Rahul Dombale so as to substantiate his
contention that even if testimony of these
witnesses since accepted as face value, still no
case of involvement of the applicant in the crime

¶21

in question is made out. According to him, the
applicant, as such, is entitled for bail.

¶22

4.While opposing the claim, learned

¶23

Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the
statements of witnesses Vijaya Kawade and Avinash
Dubale so as to claim that the applicant is
involved in the crime in question.

¶24

250.17crapln

¶25

(3)

¶26

5.What could be gathered from the available

¶27

material on record is, the entire investigation
against present applicant on naming him as accused
in the crime in question is one Shivraj was found

¶28

to be murdered body was located at mine. It is
then to be noted that the role attributed to the
applicant is that of member of group, who has taken
contract of killing said Shivraj at the behest of
accused No.1 Mandakini, who was step mother of said
Shivraj. There was dispute between Shivraj and
Mandakini on sharing benefits which are to be due
and receivable pursuant to death of her husband and
father of deceased Shivraj from the Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation after his death.
As such, Mandakini claimed to have given contract
for killing Shivraj to present applicant and other
co-accused.

¶29

6.From the material available on record as

¶30

is already observed herein above that the case is
based on circumstantial evidence, there is hardly
any criminal circumstance or material so as to

¶31

(4)

¶32

remotely connect the present applicant in the crime
in question.

¶33

7.The evidence of witnesses who are named

¶34

herein above are not connecting in any manner
whatsoever to the present applicant to the crime in
question.

¶35

8.In view thereof, in my opinion, the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail. As
such, following order is passed:-

¶36

(i)The applicant be released on bail, in
connection with Crime No.246 of 2015, registered
with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad,
for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201,
120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with
one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶37

(ii)The applicant shall not influence the

¶38

prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.

¶39

250.17crapln (5)

¶40

(iii)Two consecutive absence of the applicant
before the Court below during trial shall entail
the said Court to initiate proceedings for
cancellation of bail.

¶41

9.Criminal Application stands allowed in

¶42

above terms.

¶43

Tupe

Hariprasad Kalmesh Kolkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad Kalmesh Kolkar 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

Amol Vinayak Ransing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar Vs Arun Dagdu Madukar and Anr.

Dadarao S/O Raghunath Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sominath S/O Sukhdeo Changhate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Bhimrao Bhamare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gautam S/O Vishwanath Puri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.