Dismissed

Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jun 2021BA/586/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC 37(1) and 135 regarding assault and attempted murder causing grievous injury, the Court found insufficient grounds for bail. Considering the severe injuries and the likelihood of future harm, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the applicant Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh is rejected as it is not safe to release him on bail.

Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

36-BA-586-21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2021

¶5

Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh.... Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Tejas P. Hilge, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Smt.Veera Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 11th JUNE, 2021
(Through video conferencing)

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶13

connection with C.R.No.301/2019 registered with Kothrud

¶14

Police Station, Pune, under sections 307, 326 of the Indian Penal
Code, under sections 4 and 25 of Indian Arms Act and under

¶15

sections 37(1) and 135. The Applicant was arrested on
12/09/2019 and since then he is in custody. Investigation is
carried out and the charge-sheet is filed.

¶16

Nesarikar

¶17

2 / 5 36-BA-586-21.odt

¶18

2. The FIR is lodged by one Sneha Atul Pawar, who was
21 years of age. She has stated that the Applicant was residing
in front of their house. There was quarrel between her mother
and the Applicant about 10 years ago on some petty issue of
throwing garbage. But since then, the Applicant was holding
grudge against them and he used to stare angrily at the
informant and her mother. On 12/09/2019, the informant and
her mother were present near Ganesha Residency. At that time,
he came there and suddenly assaulted the informant and her
mother with sharp weapon causing grievous injuries. People
nearby came for their rescue and they were taken to hospital.
After this the FIR is lodged.

¶19

3. Heard Mr.Tejas P. Hilge, learned counsel for the Applicant and Smt.Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
incident is improbable. The narration in the FIR is exaggerated.
Test Identification Parade is not conducted for independent

¶21

3 / 5 36-BA-586-21.odt

¶22

witness to identify him. CCTV footage is not seized. Section 307
of IPC is not made out. The Applicant is in custody since a long
period. The Applicant at present has a house at some different
place and therefore there is no further possibility of commission
of any other offence.

¶23

5. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted
that looking at the injuries, it is quite obvious that the Applicant
had the intention to cause such injury, which may fall under
section 307 of IPC. She submitted that on a petty issue which
had taken place 10 years back, the Applicant was holding
grudge for a long time. Therefore the informant and her mother
are not safe if the Applicant is released on bail.

¶24

6. I have considered these submissions. With the

¶25

assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the
charge-sheet. There is direct evidence in the form of statements
of the informant and her mother. Medical certificates show
following injuries -:

¶26

36-BA-586-21.odt

¶27

4 / 5

¶28

Informant -

¶29

(i) Right forearm – deep approax CLW 7 x 4 cms on extensor surface of forearm 3 cm proximal to wrist joint – Deep muscle and tendon injury.

¶30

(ii) CLW approx 7 x 4 cms was 6 cm proximal to right wrist joint with muscle injury.

¶31

(iii) Left hand – 5 x 3 cm CLW present on left forearm flexor compartment 4 cm proximal to wrist.

¶32

(iv) Subcutaneous deep 4 X 4 cm deep CLW in web space between left thumb and index finger with muscles and cut bone exposed.

¶33

(v) Multiple CLW on palmar aspect of right hand index middle and ring finger.

¶34

Her mother Manisha Pawar -

¶35

(i) Deep CLW 5 x 2 x 1 cms over right parietal region

¶36

(ii) Communited displaced sharp fracture of right parietal bone with scalp hematoma and pneumocephalus.

¶37

(iii) Deep CLW approx 3 x 1 cm on the medial aspect of right little finger at MCP joint, muscle deep with periosteum exposed

¶38

5 / 5 36-BA-586-21.odt

¶39

(iv)CLW approx 3 x 1 cm on the medial aspect of
right middle finger at MCP joint with muscle
injury.

¶40

7. Thus, it can be seen that the Applicant had given
repeated blows on both these helpless ladies. They had suffered
grievous injuries. The mother of the victim had suffered skull
fracture. Thus, the intention of the Applicant is quite clear.
Offence u/s 307 is made out. The Applicant if enlarged on bail
will be a constant danger to both these ladies. Therefore I do not
find it safe to release the Applicant on bail. The application is
rejected.

¶41

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Tukaram Mulukh 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

Lala Baban Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Karshid Ramchandra Dhone Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yasmin Latif Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pappu @ Hrishikesh Ramesh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shanno Jahan Mohd. Idrisi Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Babasaheb Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra