Allowed

Atikraman Mujesh Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Feb 2021BA/188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two applicants accused of murder and related offences under the IPC. The court noted inconsistencies between the FIR allegations of multiple persons causing assault and the single stab wound found at the postmortem, deeming the charges exaggerated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Directing release of applicants on bail by furnishing personal bonds in Rs.30,000 each with sureties.

Atikraman Mujesh Kale and Ors. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 31-ba-188-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2021

¶5

1. Atikraman Mujesh Kale
2. Sachin @ Sachya Bhosale .... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade for Applicants.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:16th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The Applicants are seeking their release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.214 of 2020, registered with Koregaon
police station, under sections 302, 143, 147, 148 r/w. 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The applicants were arrested
on 05/07/2020 and since then they are in custody.

¶10

2.Heard Shri. Shreyas Barsawade, learned counsel for

¶11

the applicants and Shri. Yadav, learned APP for the State.

¶12

Gokhale

¶13

1 of 5

¶14

 : 2 : 31-ba-188-21.odt

¶15

3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is

¶16

lodged by father of the deceased. The deceased was one Vijya.
Informant’s name is Kajya Kale. The informant is an eye witness.
He has stated that, on 05/07/2020, at about 11:30a.m., about 8 to
9 persons who are named in the F.I.R. came towards the informant
and his son Vijya. They questioned Vijya. They were angry with
him because according to them he was a police informer. There are
allegations that, all of them started assaulting him with sticks,
kicks and fist blows. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the applicant
No.1 held the hands of the deceased and accused Ashok stabbed
him on his left thigh. The informant’s son rescued himself and
started running, but because of bleeding injury he fell down on the
ground. All the accused ran away from the spot. The informant
told the Sarpanch about the incident and then the deceased was
removed to the hospital, but he was declared dead at the time of
admission. Thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged, investigation was
carried out and the applicant was arrested. During the
investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded. The
statements of eye witnesses were recorded under section 164 of

¶17

2 of 5

¶18

 : 3 : 31-ba-188-21.odt

¶19

Cr.p.c.

¶20

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
postmortem notes show that there is only one stab injury. It is not
consistent with the story of the eye witnesses. He submitted that
the evidence of all the witnesses does not appear to be true.

¶21

5.Learned APP opposed this application on the ground
that the statements of the eye witnesses sufficiently bring out the
material against the present applicant. It is a case of direct
evidence.

¶22

6.I have considered these submissions. The statements of

¶23

eye witnesses are consistent with the story in the F.I.R. The
postmortem notes show that, there was only one incised wound
over left thigh of the deceased and cause of the death was ‘due to
hypovolemic shock with stab injury’. There was no other injury on
the deceased. This itself shows that the version in the F.I.R.
appears to be exaggerated, as far as, others who were carrying

¶24

3 of 5

¶25

 : 4 : 31-ba-188-21.odt

¶26

sticks and were attributed role of causing assault by kicks and fist
blows; are concerned. Therefore, at present, the allegations appear
to be rather exaggerated. Apart from that, the applicant No.1 is
given role of holding the deceased when other accused Ashok had
inflicted stab injury on the thigh of the deceased. Significantly, the
blow was not given on a vital part. There was only one stab injury
and that too was on the thigh. It was only because main artery was
cut, the deceased suffered heavy bleeding causing his death.
Therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to observe that either of the
applicants had shared common object of causing death of the
deceased. The offence, if at all, may be a much lesser offence. The
applicants are already in custody since July 2020. The
investigation is over. They are very young, aged 19 years.
Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to these applicants. The
observations made in this order are restricted to passing of this
order in this application only. The trial court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations made in this order..

¶27

4 of 5

¶28

 : 5 : 31-ba-188-21.odt

¶29

7.Hence, the following order :

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) In connection with C.R.No.214 of 2020, registered with Koregaon police station, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand each Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶32

(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶34

5 of 5

Atikraman Mujesh Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atikraman Mujesh Kale and Ors. 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

Kaif Afzal Sorathia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jakir Bandenawaj Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suhas Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Nirmalsing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Ursula Harry Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra