Allowed

Krushna Anil Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Oct 2021BA/1327/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant accused of murder, arms possession, and police act offences. The court held that the applicant's role was limited to physical presence without any conspiracy charge or criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; released on bail with P.R. bonds of Rs.25,000/ with sureties, conditions against witness tampering and movement out of jurisdiction.

Krushna Anil Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 3 46 ba 1327.21..doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Bail Application No. 1327 of 2021

¶4

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2021.10.12 10:40:01 +0530

¶5

Krushna Anil Kumbhar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Amit Singh for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. 11^th October 2021

¶9

P.C.

¶10

On November 5, 2019 applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.441/2019 punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3,25 of Arms Act,1959 and Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

¶11

The prosecution story against the applicant appears to be that Saleem fired from his illegal weapon towards Anand Sonawane who was having inimical terms with the applicant.

¶12

2 / 3 46 ba 1327.21..doc

¶13

The role attributed to the applicant from the statement of eye witness is only that of physical presence on the site of the incident. No specific supporting role is attributed to the applicant as can be inferred from the statements of Amol and Sagar who claimed to be an eye witness to the incident and friends of the deceased.

¶14

As such even if there was a history of applicant having inimical terms, there is no material to infer any conspiracy at the behest of the applicant to murder deceased Sonawane. Atleast the IO has not invoked any provisions of Section 120B of the IPC for the offence in question. As the chargesheet in the matter is already filed and there are no criminal antecedents as scheduled under Section 302, a case for grant of bail is made out.

¶15

In that view of the matter, the application is allowed on following terms and conditions :

¶16

i) The applicant be released on bail in Crime No. I-441 of 2019, registered at Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3,25 of Arms Act and Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act on furnishing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶17

3 / 3 46 ba 1327.21..doc

¶18

ii)The applicant shall neither influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner nor tamper with the evidence.

¶19

iii) The applicant shall not enter jurisdiction of the Police Station till conclusion of trial.

¶20

The Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

(NITIN W.SAMBRE, J)

¶22

Lata Panjwani, P.S.

Krushna Anil Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna Anil Kumbhar 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

Mahesh Ramji Bhadricha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siraj @ Karimuddin Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vivian Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagraj Paulswami Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Tukaram Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sohail Abu Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra