Allowed

Ravindra Devidas Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017BA/1866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the appellant in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. The court found prima facie insufficient material against him aside from circumstantial evidence and ordered release on a bond with financial and behaviour conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, subject to conditions regarding police appearance and conduct.

Ravindra Devidas Kamble Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

39 ba 1866-17=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1866 OF 2017

¶4

Ravindra Devidas Kamble … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Ashish Satpute for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER, 2017

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in C.R. No. 388/2016 dated 12/10/2016 registered with Sinhagad Police Station, District Pune under Sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶9

2 It is the prosecution case that due to earlier enmity with deceased Sandeep Ningule, the co-accused namely Yogesh Kamble and Bala Raut called the deceased out of his house in wee hours of 11.10.2016 and thereafter, the dead body of Sandeep Ningude was found near the canal. During the course of investigation, the Applicant came to be arrested on 12.10.2016 and after completion of investigation the police have submitted charge-sheet.

¶10

4 Perused the charge-sheet. The record indicates that apart from statements

¶11

of witnesses indicating that there was earlier enmity between the Applicant and other three co-accused with deceased Sandeep and there is another circumstance

1/2

Sneha Chavan

39 ba 1866-17=.doc

of recovery of clothes of the Applicant under Section 27 of Evidence Act, having black colour spots on the said clothes. Apart from the said two circumstances, prima facie it appears that, there is no other material against the Applicant.

¶16

5 In view thereof, the following order:-

¶17

i) The applicant be released on bail in n C.R. No. 388/2016 dated 12/10/2016 registered with Sinhagad Police Station, District Pune on his furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent local sureties in the like amount.

¶18

ii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall attend the Sinhagad Police Station once in month i.e. on every 1^st Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

¶19

iii) The applicant shall also attend all dates before the Trial Court.

¶20

iv) Any two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid conditions, shall attract the provisions of cancellation of bail.

¶21

v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(vi) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

(A.S.GADKARI, J.)

¶24

2/2

¶25

Sneha Chavan

Ravindra Devidas Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Devidas Kamble 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

Atul Alias Pintu Nandkumar Mohite Vs State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Anil Garud Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Pintu Kazam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajkumar Dhundappa Yadagond Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Imdad Shete and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Christina Stephen Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra