Bombay High Court

Kundlik @ Kondiram Pandurang Kanap vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:32687-DB
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2471 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.678 OF 2025

Kundlik @ Kondiram Pandurang Kanap ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_______________________
Ms. Tanvii Tapkire for the Applicant.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent - State.
_______________________

CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 31st JULY, 2025.

P.C. :-

1. Present Application seeking bail pending the aforesaid Appeal has

been preferred by the Applicant/Original Accused No.5 in Sessions Case

No.44 of 2018. Therein the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by his

Judgment and Order dated 7 th January, 2025 acquitted the Original Accused

No.7-Sunil Kolekar but convicted the Applicant and other five Accused

persons with him, for commission of offences punishable under Section 302

read with Section 149 and under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the I.P.C. The

major sentence imposed on them was imprisonment for life besides the

imposition of fine.

Page 1 of 6
31st July, 2025

::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:04:23 :::
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

2. Heard Ms. Tapkire, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Saste,

learned APP for the Respondent - State.

3. The incident occurred in the night intervening 1st December, 2017 and

2nd December, 2017. As per the prosecution story, during an entertainment

programme arranged in the village, the Applicant's group had behaved in an

unruly manner and they had disturbed the programme. One Ashok Bhosale

and his brother Prakash Bhosale took an exception to such behaviour and

they complained to the village panchas. The Applicant's group got annoyed.

In the night, all the Accused came on two wheelers carrying weapons like

gupti and sticks. Prakash and Ashok were assaulted. Ashok was assaulted on

his thigh and buttocks with sharp weapon, cutting his femoral vein causing

his death. On these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged by Ashok's father.

Investigation was carried out and the Applicant was arrested on 6th

December, 2017. During trial the prosecution relied mainly on the evidence

of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1- Tanaji Bhosale, who was the father of the

deceased, PW3-Prakash Bhosale, who was the brother of the deceased and

who was also injured in the incident. The third eye witness was PW4-

Dnyaneshwar Bhosale, who was one of the panchas in the village. Their

evidence narrating the incident, was consistent.

4. Ms. Tapkire, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the

incident had not occurred in the manner as stated in the FIR. She submitted

that, in fact, the members of the party of the deceased were the aggressors.
Page 2 of 6
31st July, 2025

::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:04:23 :::
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

However, suppressing the true story from the police, the F.I.R. was filed by

concocting a story of the murder, as noted above. She submitted that, as

alleged, like Accused No.6, the Applicant had also inflicted stick blows to the

deceased. Yet, the medical evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Ajay Bhosekar and the

post-mortem report indicates that the injuries allegedly caused by sticks

were on the shoulder of the deceased. Admittedly, the said injuries did not

result into the death of the deceased as evident from the medical evidence.

As such, it cannot be said that the Applicant had intention to cause the

death of the deceased. Lastly, she submitted that the Original Accused No.6

who had the role of inflicting stick blows to the deceased, had been granted

bail by this Court. The case and the evidence against the Applicant stands on

the same footing. She submitted that, the Applicant was on bail during the

trial. Said liberty of bail was, however, not misused by the Applicant. She

has therefore submitted that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, there is consistent

evidence by P.W. Nos.1, 3 and 4 that the Applicant and his co-accused

assaulted the deceased with an intention to cause his death. For that

purpose, all the accused had come together carrying the weapons as stated

above. As such, the common object to commit the murder of the deceased

was manifest. Therefore, the trial Court has convicted the Applicant and the

co-accused persons as stated in paragraph 1 above.

6. We have considered these submissions and perused the material.
Page 3 of 6
31st July, 2025

::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:04:23 :::
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

7. PW1-Tanaji Bhosale is the father of the deceased. His testimony

indicates that, the Applicant's group created disturbance during the

entertainment programme. Therefore, both his sons i.e. Ashok and Prakash

complained to a panch committee and requested to make the Applicant's

group understand to behave properly. However, after the said programme

was over, all the Accused came to that spot including acquitted Accused

No.7, forming an unlawful assembly and carrying weapons. The Accused

Sandip and Vishal were carrying gupti, Accused No.3-Sagar was having

kukri, the others were having sticks, including the Applicant. Specific role of

assault with gupti is attributed to Sandip and Vishal. There is an assertion

that the other Accused assaulted Ashok with sticks on his shoulder, back and

other parts. His another son Prakash (PW3) was assaulted on his eye and

back by the Accused-Kolekar. The Accused then fled, leaving their two

wheelers at the spot. Ashok was taken to the dispensary but he was declared

dead.

8. The testimony of PW3-Prakash Bhosale is on the same line. It is

supported with the evidence of PW4-Dnyaneshwar Bhosale. P.W.4 deposed

that, Prakash and Ashok had complained him about the Applicant's group.

The evidence of PW Nos.1, 3 and 4 is free from significant discrepancy.

9. The deceased had suffered three incised wounds, as can be seen

from the postmortem notes. Two of the wounds were on the right thigh.

One wound damaged the right gluteal region. The cause of death was
Page 4 of 6
31st July, 2025

::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:04:23 :::
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

mentioned as 'hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries'. In so far as

Prakash is concerned, the Medical Certificate shows that, he had suffered

three contusions, one abrasion and one incised wound near his eye, but the

same were opined as simple injuries.

10. Taking note of the aforesaid material, while granting bail to the said

Accused No.6, this Court observed that, "... if there was a common object

arising out of that grudge, then Prakash and Ashok both were the targets.

However, it can be seen from the evidence that Prakash had suffered only

simple injuries, whereas three incised wounds were caused to Ashok on the

thigh and the surrounding region. It was not on the abdomen or thorax.

Therefore, at this stage, we find substance in the submissions of the learned

senior counsel that, the common object was not to commit murder of the

deceased but to cause assault, which could have resulted in causing hurt or

even grievous hurt but not the injury resulting in death ." The Applicant is

attributed with the role of using a stick, like the Accused No.6. But, the stick

was not used to strike on any vital part of the body. Therefore, for

consideration of bail, at this stage, "the ground of parity" canvased by the

learned counsel for the Applicant can be accepted. The Applicant was on

bail during trial, which liberty he did not misuse. Therefore, we are inclined

to allow this Application.

11. It is made clear that, these observations are made only for the purpose

of deciding this Bail Application. All these aspects will have to be considered
Page 5 of 6
31st July, 2025

::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:04:23 :::
P.H. JAYANI 04 IA2471.2025.DOC

finally, at the stage of hearing. At this stage, the Applicant has made out a

case for grant of bail pending the Appeal. Hence, the following order :-

:: ORDER :

(i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.678

of 2025, the Applicant/Original Accused No.5 in Sessions Case

No.44 of 2018 is directed to be released on bail on his executing

P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or two sureties in

the like amount.