Allowed

Sunita Raju Chamare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Nov 2021BA/2307/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC 439, the High Court of Bombay C.A.J. considered the release of the accused in a murder and conspiracy case. Finding the role unclear and relying on her affidavit undertaking, the judge allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two local sureties in like amount, subject to execution of P.R. Bond.

Sunita Raju Chamare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

31-BA-2307-2021.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2307 OF 2021

¶4

Sunita Raju Chamare

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Applicant.
Mrs.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶10

 CORAM :V.G.BISHT, J.
RESERVED ON :16TH NOVEMBER, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON :25TH NOVEMBER, , 2021

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The present application has been moved by the

¶13

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in Crime No. 1002 of 2020 registered with
Lonikand Police Station, Pune Rural for offences punishable
under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and under Sections 4 and 25 of
the Arms Act and under Section 37 (1) read with 135 of the

¶14

Bombay Police Act.

Trupti

1/5

31-BA-2307-2021.DOC

2. It is the case of the prosecution that informant is the

¶19

wife of Govind Kumkar (since deceased), who used to give
tips to the police about illegal activities in Perne, Wagholi etc.
The applicant is her neighbour and is engaged in the business
of sale of liquor. The deceased had given information to the
police about illegal business of the applicant.

¶20

3.The prosecution alleges that on 15th November, 2020,
the deceased was found dead. During the investigation,
accused No.1, namely, Satyam Chamare came to be arrested
and he revealed that the present applicant was annoyed due
to giving of tips of her illegal activities by deceased to the
police. The applicant along with other accused hatched
conspiracy to eliminate deceased. Accordingly with the help
of juvenile offender Shivanjali Deshmukh, deceased was
called at Perne Phata where he was assaulted by accused
Satyam Chamare, Balu Warghade and Shubham Chamare by
means of sickle and axe and his dead body was concealed in

Trupti

2/5

31-BA-2307-2021.DOC

the forest. Accordingly, after conclusion of investigation, the
charge-sheet came to be filed.

¶25

4.Mr. Vagal, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits
that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant.
Investigation is already completed. Learned Counsel, then,
invited my attention to the affidavit-cum-declaration filed by
applicant pursuant to the order of this Court (Coram : Revati
Mohite Dere, J.) dated 6th October, 2021 and would submit
that the applicant being a woman, be released on bail.

¶26

5. Mrs. Malhotra, learned APP, on the other hand, oppose

¶27

the submission by contending that the present applicant was
one of the conspirator and it is at her instance, all the accused
conspired and killed the deceased. The offence being of
serious nature, the application may not be allowed.

¶28

6. Perused investigation papers and the statements of various prosecution witnesses. Apparently, the role of present applicant in the assault of deceased is not discernible. As far

Trupti

3/5

31-BA-2307-2021.DOC

as the theory of criminal conspiracy is concerned, same will
have to be proved at the time of evidence by the prosecution
witnesses. Moreover, the affidavit-cum-declaration given by
applicant shows that if she is released on bail, she will not
indulge in any criminal or anti social activities henceforth, will
regularly attend the trial Court and will co-operate in
conclusion of the trial and she will not pressurize any witness.

¶33

7. Having regard to the material on record, in my

¶34

considered opinion, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail. Hence, the following order :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i)Applicant- Sunita Raju Chamare shall be

¶37

released on bail in C.R. No. 1002 of 2020
registered with Lonikand Police Station, Pune
Rural on her executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- with one or two local surety/ sureties
in like amount.

Trupti

4/5

31-BA-2307-2021.DOC

(ii) The affidavit-cum-declaration, which is marked

¶42

as ‘X’, shall form the part of bail order.

¶43

(iii) Bail before the trial Court.

¶44

(iv)Parties to act on copy of this order duly
authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

¶45

(v) The application is allowed in the aforesaid
terms and disposed of accordingly.

¶46

(V.G.BISHT, J. )

¶47

Digitally signed by TRUPTI TRUPTI SADANAND SADANAND BAMNE BAMNE Date: 2021.11.25 20:37:07 +0530

¶48

Trupti

¶49

5/5

Sunita Raju Chamare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Raju Chamare 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

Rahul Ashok Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kushappa Rukawwa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Karishma Pratish Desale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Maruti Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Bhaurao Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Nimba Memane Vs the State of Maharashtra