Dismissed

Ashish Sanjay Keripale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2021BA/1063/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under a murder charge involving the hiring of contract killers, the court rejected the plea relying on parity of punishment and alleged weak evidence. The judge found sufficient material including extra-judicial confessions, recovery of blood-stained articles, and a map of the deceased's house, leading to a refusal of bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal bail application was rejected, and the applicant was not released on bail.

Ashish Sanjay Keripale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

19 BA 1063-2020.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2020

¶5

Sashish Sanjay Keripale... Applicant
 versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State-Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 08th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. The applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶10

connection with C.R. No.118/2017 registered at Sangli Rural
Police Station, Dist. Sangli under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian

¶11

Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 9th August 2019 and
since then he is in custody.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, learned Counsel for
the applicant and Smt. J. S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

¶13

3. The prosecution story is that there used to be quarrels
between the deceased Geetanjali and her husband Uttam. Uttam is

¶14

Manjusha

¶15

2 / 4 19 BA 1063-2020.odt

¶16

the main accused. He hired contract killer to commit her murder.
The present applicant is one of the contract killers. On 5th August
2017, the applicant, one Sachin Chavan and one Ganesh Awale
went to Geetanjali’s house, strangulated her with a nylon rope,
stabbed her and thus, committed her murder. The Post Mortem
note shows that there were stab injuries as well as strangulation
marks. The cause of death given was stab injuries with
strangulation.

¶17

4. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Counsel for the
applicant submitted that all other accused, except the present
applicant are released on bail and therefore, on the ground of
parity, he should be released on bail. He submitted that the
evidence against the applicant is very weak. It is mainly in the
nature of extra judicial confession. Therefore, the applicant may
not be denied bail.

¶18

5. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted
that trial is almost on the verge of beginning. On merits, she
submitted that there is sufficient material against the present
applicant. There are three witnesses who speak about the extra

¶19

3 / 4 19 BA 1063-2020.odt

¶20

judicial confession given by the applicant. She submitted that there
are additional circumstances of recovery of bloodstained clothes,
blood-stained knife and map of the way to the house of the
deceased. She submitted that therefore, the applicant does not
deserve to be release on bail.

¶21

6. I have considered these submissions. There are three
witnesses who have stated about the extra judicial confessions
made by this accused to them. They are Mahesh Kamble, Ashish
Kamble and Shubham Yevle. Their statements were recorded
under 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. All of them have stated that the
applicant met them on different occasions between 5th and 6th
August 2017 and confessed about commission of Geetanjalis’
murder.

¶22

7. Ashish Kamble’s statement in fact shows that when the
applicant was making confession, he demanded money from the
main accused Uttam More. Uttam brought Rs.3,500/- and gave
that money to the applicant.

¶23

8. Shubham Yevle has stated that the applicant had
confessed to him that he had taken Rs.50,000/- for commission of

¶24

4 / 4 19 BA 1063-2020.odt

¶25

that murder. All these witnesses were threatened by the applicant.
Besides, these, the extra judicial confessions, another strong
circumstance is of recovery of blood stained clothes and a knife
which were concealed by him and recovered at his instance. These
articles were blood stained and C.A. report shows that it was
human blood. Besides this, a map of the way to Geetanjali’s house
was found when the applicant was arrested. This again is a strong
and different circumstance against the present applicant.
Considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, the
prosecution has sufficient evidence against the present applicant.
No case for grant of bail is made out. The offence is serious. The
applicant has committed this offence for money.

¶26

9.The application is rejected.

¶27

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Ashish Sanjay Keripale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Sanjay Keripale 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

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhaysinh Rajendra Kaldhone Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zahid Ahmed Khurshid Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sufiya Maksud Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gaurav Dinesh Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra