Jeevan Gangaram Kamble v. State Of Maharashtra

910-BA-2055-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2055 OF 2024 Jeevan Gangaram Kamble ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Shailesh Chavan I.by Mr. Nagesh Khedkar, for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP, for the Respondent / State. --------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.08.21 14:28:24 +0530

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

20TH AUGUST, 2024.

PC:

1.

Heard.

2.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.900 of 2020 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Dist. Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 143, 147, 149 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 (25) of the Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant is praying for grant of bail mainly on the point of period of incarceration. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail from last 4 years and 4 months and out of total 12 varsha

910-BA-2055-2024.doc accused 3 have been released on bail. Furthermore, he submits that in 2018 the applicant was assaulted by the deceased and some other persons in which his hand was seriously injured and due to which he cannot do any work with the said hand. He, therefore, submits that considering this medical reason, the applicant may be released on bail. 4.

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that there was a motive as far as the applicant is concerned. The applicant is the main accused and a specific role is attributed to the applicant. Further, the Post Morterm report shows that 32 injuries of grievous nature were found on the body of the deceased. Most of the injuries are chop injuries or incise injuries. Thus, The offence is very serious and there are 4 antecedents against the applicant.

5.

In that view of the matter since the applicant is the main accused and there is sufficient incriminating material available against the applicant, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Moreover, considering the antecedents of similar nature, there is every possibility that if the applicant is released on bail, he may commit the similar offence.

6.

In that view of the matter, the application is rejected. (ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha