Jitendra Sahebrao Fulpagare Alias Jitu Fulpagare v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 Criminal Application No.3202-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3202 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.153 OF 2024 JITENDRA SAHEBRAO FULPAGARE ALIAS JITU FULPAGARE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ....

Mr. Imran Khan Guftar Khan Durani, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent -State Ms. Nima R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Assist to APP ....

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 02/02/2026.

ORDER :

1.

By way of the present application, the applicant, Jitendra Sahebrao Fulpagare @ Jitu Fulpagare, who is the original Accused No.3, seeks suspension of his substantive sentence of imprisonment and consequent release on bail during the pendency of the present appeal. Vide judgment and order dated 21/12/2023, the applicant-accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.

The learned counsel for the applicant-accused vehemently argued that the co-accused have already been released on bail,

2 Criminal Application No.3202-25 though they were also convicted for offences similar to those attributed to the present applicant. He submitted that the allegation against the present applicant is limited to inflicting a single stab blow on the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon like a Gupti. However, as per the post-mortem report, the said stab injury was not the sole injury sustained by the deceased; rather, there were as many as eleven injuries on the person of the deceased, caused by the other accused as well. He further pointed out that the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy opined that injury Nos.5 to 9 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and therefore, the stab injury, i.e. injury No.6, was not the only injury responsible for the death of the deceased. On the ground of parity, the learned counsel seeks suspension of sentence and release of the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3.

On the contrary, the learned APP as well as the learned counsel assisting the APP, Ms. Nima R. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the application on the ground that there is a direct role attributed to the present applicant in the commission of the murder of the deceased. It was submitted that though the applicant inflicted only a single stab injury, but the said injury was caused on a vital part of the body and was the injury which ultimately led to the death of the deceased.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the evidence on record. Admittedly, the incident took place in two parts. In the first part, there was the main incident in which the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to them.

3 Criminal Application No.3202-25 In the second part, the remaining accused assaulted other persons when the deceased was taken to the hospital. Though the coaccused have been released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal, the injuries attributed to them were on other parts of the body, whereas the injury caused by the present applicant was a stab wound on a vital part of the body, namely the stomach, inflicted with a sharp-pointed weapon like a Gupti. As per the evidence of the Medical Officer, the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, considering the principal role attributed to the present applicantaccused, we are not inclined to grant him relief on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) VS Maind/-