Siddharth Mariba Kamble vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

Siddharth Mariba Kamble vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the bail application was rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned in Crime No. 1058 of 2022 (Pimpri Police Station, Pune) for offences including murder under s.302 IPC and allied provisions of the Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act and MCOC Act, should be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. +2 more

Court's answer

The bail application is rejected: the court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

The offence is a very serious one in which the deceased was brutally killed.

Key takeaways

There are eye-witnesses who have named the applicant.ratio¶33
Because the offence is a case of unlawful assembly, the fact that no specific role is attributed to the applicant is not material for grant of bail.ratio¶33
There are witnesses who prima facie connect the applicant to the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Anil S. Kilor, J.), by order dated 5 August 2024, REJECTED a Section 439 CrPC bail application of the applicant arraigned in Crime No. 1058 of 2022 (Pimpri Police Station, District: Pune), involving offences under ss. 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 114, 115, 212, 201 IPC, ss. 3, 4, 25, 27 Arms Act, s. 37(1) r/w 135 Maharashtra Police Act, ss. 3 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and s. 3(1)(i)(ii) and 3(4) MCOC Act. Although the charge-sheet stood filed and co-accused John Paul and Rekha had already secured bail, the court declined bail because: (i) the offence was 'very serious', the deceased having been brutally killed; (ii) eye-witnesses had named the applicant, and in a case of unlawful assembly the absence of a specifically attributed role was 'not material' for grant of bail; (iii) witnesses prima facie connected the applicant to the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased; and (iv) with two prior antecedents, there was no reasonable ground to believe the applicant not guilty, nor any assurance that, if released, he would not commit a similar offence. Counsel's submissions that the applicant was a witness in a previous case against the deceased and had been acquitted in one antecedent case did not alter the decision. No precedent was cited; the decision rests wholly on the court's assessment of gravity, eyewitness evidence, conspiracy connections and antecedents.

(6)-BA-79-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2024

Siddharth Mariba Kamble ... Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2024

Arjun Nagu Gaikwad ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Ms. Sana Raees Khan, for the applicant.

Ms. Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the respondent / State.

Ms. Priyal Sarda with Shubham Sane, Seema Dighe and Mr. Rajesh R, for the intervenor.

Mr. Vasant Bendarkar, PI, Pimpri Police Station, Present.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2024.

PC:

Heard.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.1058 of 2022, registered with Pimpri Police Station, District: Pune, for the

1 of 4

varsha

(6)-BA-79-2024.doc

offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 114, 115, 212, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), Sections 3, 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Section 37(1) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3 and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and section 3(1) (i) (ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though in the FIR the applicant was named, however, in the supplementary statement the name of the applicant was not mentioned. However, the name which was additionally mentioned i.e. the co-accused, John Paul he has been granted bail.

It is submitted that there is no recovery against the applicant and no specific role is attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that the motive was against the main accused i.e. accused no. 1, who is the gang leader as his brother was allegedly killed by the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter because he was the witness in a previous case registered against the deceased.

It is further submitted that the co-accused Rekha who instigated all the accused persons to kill the deceased has also been granted bail by the trial Court. It is further argued that considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant may be released on bail.

The learned APP on the other hand, strongly opposed the

2 of 4

varsha

(6)-BA-79-2024.doc

application and points out that there are seven eye-witnesses to the incident. The learned counsel for the applicant, however disputed the same and submitted that three out of seven eye-witnesses have not named the applicant.

The learned APP further points that as far as conspiracy is concerned, there are two eye-witnesses who have named the applicant and stated the fact about the conspiracy. It is further argued that as it is the case of unlawful assembly, even though a specific role is not attributed, the presence at the scene of offence and involvement in the alleged offence, of the applicant is sufficient. Accordingly, the learned APP prays for rejection of the application.

The learned counsel, Mr. Sarda, for the intervenor reiterates the submission of the learned APP and prays for dismissal of the present application.

The present offence is a very serious offence, wherein the deceased was brutally killed. There are eye-witnesses who have named the applicant and since it is a case of unlawful assembly, even though a specific role is not attributed against the applicant, it is not material for grant of bail. Furthermore, there are witnesses to prima facie connect the applicant as regards the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Moreover, there are two antecedents against the applicant other than the present one.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in one of

3 of 4

varsha

(6)-BA-79-2024.doc

those cases the applicant was acquitted. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there are eye-witnesses, hence, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty in the alleged offence. Moreover, considering the antecedents, it cannot be said that if the applicant is released on bail he will not commit the similar offence.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

4 of 4

varsha