IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2016

DIST. – KOLHAPUR

Sandip alias Pintu Balkrishan Salunke )

Age-27 years, residing at Adarsh )
Zopadpatti, Jawahar Nagar, Ichalkaranji, ) Applicant
Hatkanangale Taluka, District Kolhapur ) (Accused No.4)

Versus

State of Maharashtra )
(Through P.I. Shivaji Nagar, Ichalkaranji )
Police Station) ) Respondent

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page Nos.

1. Synopsis 1-4

2 Criminal Application 5-8

3 The Order dated 2nd February 2016 of Addl. 9 – 11

Sessions Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji, District –
Kolhapur in Bail Application No. 33 of 2016

4 The Order dated 17th March 2016 of the Bombay 12 – 16

High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.
536 of 2016

5 The Order dated 27th April 2016 of Addl. 17 - 19

Sessions Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji, District –
Kolhapur in Bail Application No. 83 of 2016

6 The Chargesheet in Crime No. 5 of 2016 with

Shivaji Nagar, Ichalkaranji Police Station

Last Page No. - ___

Advocate for the Applicant

Mumbai
 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2016

DIST. – KOLHAPUR

Sandip alias Pintu Balkrishan Salunke )

Age-27 years, residing at Adarsh )
Zopadpatti, Jawahar Nagar, Ichalkaranji, ) Applicant
Hatkanangale Taluka, District Kolhapur, ) (Accused No.4)

Versus

State of Maharashtra )
(Through P.I. Shivaji Nagar, Ichalkaranji )
Police Station) ) Respondent

SYNOPSIS

Sr. Dates Particulars

No.
1. 6.1.2016 The alleged incident took place and Mr. Prashant
Dongre was got injured. Pursuant to which Crime
No. 5 of 2016 was registered.

2. 9.1.2016 The Applicant was arrested.

3. 2.2.2016 The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji,

District – Kolhapur rejected Bail Application No.
33 of 2016 of the present Applicant by holding
that, as the investigation was in progress releasing
the present Applicant at that stage would hamper
the investigation.

4. 17.03.2016 This Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Bail

Application No. 536 of 2016 granted bail to
Accused No. 1 - Mr. Arun Dattatray Jannvekar by
holding that pursuant to papers, in particular the
statement of the injured Mr. Prashant Dongre. He
has alleged that all the accused came into the
house and it was Accused No. 2 - Mr. Amar Mane
who had slapped him first, pursuant to which
Accused No. 1 and the other accused assaulted
him with fist and kick blows and thereafter
Accused No. 2 - Mr. Amar Mane pull-out a knife
 2
from his pocket and assaulted the injured on his
chest and back. Further, pursuant to the injuries
certificate, there are two stab injuries on the
person of the injured. Considering the role
attributed to Accused No. 1, he was enlarged on
bail.

5. 5.4.2016 The charge sheet in crime No. 5 of 2016 was filed.

6. 27.4.2016 Bail Application No. 83 of 2016 of the present

Applicant was rejected by the Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji, District – Kolhapur by
holding that the ground of parity cannot be used
for the Applicant, there is no new ground in the
said application and filing of chargesheet cannot
be considered as a change of circumstance.

B. ACTS TO BE REFERRED

1. Criminal Procedure Code

2. Indian Penal Code
3. Indian Evidence Act
4. Constitution of India

C. POINTS TO BE URGED

1. The Applicant has an extremely good case on merits and has a fair chance

of succeeding in his defence.

2. The evidence on the record is insufficient to warrant the conviction of the

Applicant in view of the fact that under the First Information Report (FIR)

by Mrs. Vimal Kumar Dongre, the mother of the injured – Mr. Prashant

Dongre the only role attributed to the Applicant was that he stood at the

door. Further, as per statement of Master Saurabh Suresh Gayakwad, the

only independent witness to the incident, stated that at the time of the

incident, the Applicant was standing at the door.

3. Further, the accusations against the Applicant by injured – Mr. Prashant

Dongre and his father Mr. Kumar Dongre are of general nature and do not

stipulate any specific action of the Applicant to cause injury to the injured.
 3
4. The Charge Sheet is filed without Injury Certificate of the injured from the

medical officer. It is very vital that to know nature and extent of the alleged

injuries to prove charges against the Applicant and other accused. Thus,

there is gross inadequacy of investigation and the Applicant is liable to

exonerated on this point alone.

5. As per the Order dated 17 th March 2016 of this Hon’ble High Court in

Criminal Bail Application 536 of 2016 it was prime facie observed that

pursuant to the injury certificate, there are only two stab injuries on the

injured. Allegedly it was Accused No. 3 – Mr., Amar Mane who had caused

an injury with the knife. Further, Accused No. 3 pulled out knife from his

pocket, therefore Accused No. 1 (the Applicant therein) could not be

attributed to the common intention of causing the injuries on the injured.

The only allegation against the present Applicant is that he was standing at

the door. Thus, the Applicant is entitled to enlarge on the bail on the ground

of parity particularly when on the similar allegations Accused No. 1 was

granted bail.

6. There is no evidence at all to support the finding that the Applicant was part

of any conspiracy to commit offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 452

read with 34 of the IPC along with the other Accused.

7. The trial is not even started and likely that it will take long time before the

case of the Applicant could be heard.

8. Thus, in view of above the Applicant is entitled to bail.

D. AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED

Shall be cited at the time of hearing of this Application.

Mumbai Advocate for the Applicant

This 1st day of August 2016
 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2016

DIST. – KOLHAPUR

Sandip alias Pintu Balkrishan Salunke ... Applicant

Versus
State of Maharashtra
(Through P.I. Shivaji Nagar, Ichalkaranji
Police Station) ... Respondent

An application under section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code in
connection with Crime No. 5 of 2016
under section 307, 323, 341, 452 read
with 34 of the IPC with Shivaji Nagar,
Ichalkaranji Police Station

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and other
Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of
Bombay at Mumbai

Humble Application of the Applicant

abovenamed;
 5
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. The Applicant have been charged for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 323, 341, 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Crime No. 5 of 2016 registered with Shivaji Nagar, Ichalkaranji Police

Station.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to this application are as under:

Allegedly on 6th January 2016 at about 4.30 p.m. at Shiva Chauk, Jawahar

Nagar, Ichalkaranji there was an argument between Mr. Ananda alias Papya

Dattatraya Jannvekar (Accused No. 1) and the injured - Mr Prashant

Dongre on account of interjecting with the car. On 6 th January 2016 at about

8.30 p.m. after the injured reached his home, allegedly, holding a grudge

regarding the said arguments, Accused No. 1, Mr. Arun D. Jannvekar

(Accused No. 2), Mr. Amar Mane (Accused No. 3) and the present

Applicant entered his house and that Accused No. 3 asked the injured 'Tula

Lai Masti Alla Kay'. Accused No. 3 pulled out a knife from his pocket and

assaulted the injured on his chest and back with a knife and Accused No. 1

and Accused No. 2 assaulted the injured; and the present Applicant stood at

the door. Therefore, allegedly accused attempted to kill the injured.

3. The Applicant approached the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji,

District – Kolhapur by filing Bail Application No. 33 of 2016. The Learned

Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the said application by Order dated

2nd February 2016 observing that as the investigation was in progress,

releasing the Applicant at that stage would hamper the investigation.

4. This Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 536 of 2016

granted bail to Accused No. 1 in the said Crime No. 5 of 2016 by holding

that pursuant to papers, in particular the statement of the injured Mr.

Prashant Dongre. He has alleged that all the accused came into the house

and it was Accused No. 2 - Mr. Amar Mane who had slapped him first,
 6
pursuant to which Accused No. 1 and the other accused assaulted him with

fist and kick blows and thereafter Accused No. 2 - Mr. Amar Mane pull-out

a knife from his pocket and assaulted the injured on his chest and back.

Further, pursuant to the injuries certificate, there are two stab injuries on the

person of the injured. Considering the role attributed to Accused No. 1, he

was enlarged on bail

5. On about 5th April 2016 the charge sheet in Crime No. 5 of 2016 was filed.

6. On about 20th April 2016, the Applicant approached the Ld. Addl. Sessions

Judge-1, at Ichalkaranji, District – Kolhapur by filing Bail Application No.

83 of 2016. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the

application by Order dated 27th April 2016 by holding that the ground of

parity cannot be used for the Applicant, there is no new ground in the said

application and filing of chargesheet cannot be considered as a change of

circumstance

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Ld.

Addl. Sessions Judge, the Applicant begs to prefer this application on the

following amongst other grounds.

8. Grounds:

A. The Applicant submits that he is innocent and he has been falsely

implicated in the alleged offences. The Applicant has an extremely

good case on merits and has a fair chance of succeeding in his

defence.

B. The evidence on the record is insufficient to warrant the conviction

of the Applicant in view of the fact that under the First Information

Report (FIR) by Mrs. Vimal Kumar Dongre, the mother of the

injured – Mr. Prashant Dongre the only role attributed to the

Applicant was that he stood at the door. Further, as per statement of

Master Saurabh Suresh Gayakwad, the only independent witness to

 7
the incident, at the time of the incident the Applicant was standing at

the door.

C. The evidence on the record is insufficient to warrant the conviction

of the Applicant as the accusations against the Applicant by injured

– Mr. Prashant Dongre and his father Mr. Kumar Dongre are of

general nature and do not stipulate any specific action of the

Applicant to cause injury to the injured or not attributed any specific

injury to the Applicant. The Applicant is generally named with other

accused but not assigned any specific role in respect of injuries to

the injured.

D. The evidence on the record is insufficient to warrant the conviction

of the Applicant in view of the fact that the Charge Sheet is filed

without injury certificate/injury report of the injured from the

medical officer. It is very vital to know nature and extent of the

alleged injuries to prove charges against the Applicant and other

accused. Thus, there is gross inadequacy of investigation and the

Applicant is liable to exonerated on this point alone.

E. As per the Order dated 17th March 2016 of this Hon’ble High Court

in Criminal Bail Application 536 of 2016 learned Justice, pursuant to

the injury certificate, recorded that there are only two stab injuries

on the injured. In the chargesheet, it is alleged that it was Accused

No. 3 – Mr., Amar Mane who had caused an injury with the knife. It

is alleged that Accused No. 3 pulled out knife from his pocket;

therefore, Accused No. 3 could not be attributed to the common

intention of causing the injuries on the injured. Thus, the present

Applicant is entitled to enlarge on the bail on the ground of parity

particularly when on the similar allegations Accused No. 1 was

granted bail by this Hon’ble High Court. Allegedly, the incident took
 8
place as a reason of grudge of Accused No. 1 on the account of his

argument with the injured. Further, Accused No. 1 along with the

Accused No. 2 is accused of assaulting the injured in the charge

sheet. Accused No. 1 also resides in same area as of the present

Applicant. After consideration, the Hon’ble High Court pleased to

grant bail to Accused No. 1. The only charge against the Applicant is

that he stood at the door. Thus, even though allegations against

Accused No. 1 are serious in comparison still he is been granted bail

but the Applicant had been denied the same.

F. There is no evidence at all to support the allegations that the

Applicant was part of any conspiracy or there was a common

intention to commit offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 452 read

with 34 of the IPC along with the other Accused.

G. The Applicant was arrested on 9th January 2016 and has been in

custody for more than 205 days i.e. more than six months.

H. Furthermore, there are material omissions and contradictions of a

very vital nature that go to the root of the matter in the statements of

the witnesses and therefore, it is even otherwise not possible to

convict the Applicant on such statements/case.

I. The trial is not even started and likely that it will take long time

before the case of the Applicant could be heard.

9. The Applicant further submit that if he is enlarged on bail he will not

temper with any prosecution witness or evidence nor he is likely to flee

away.

10. The Applicant further submit that he have not preferred any other bail

application or petition with regard to the subject matter of the present

application except the above mentioned Criminal Application before any

other court of Law including the Supreme Court of India.

 9
11. The Applicant reserves his right to alter, change or amend the petition in

case of any necessity so arises in future and in the interest of justice.

12. The Applicant therefore prays that:

a) To allow this Application and be further pleased to order to release

the petitioners on bail.

b) As the Applicant is in judicial custody, the affidavit may be

dispensed with.

c) For such further and other Orders and Directions as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND FOR EVER PRAY.

This 1st day of August 2016 Advocate for the

Appellant
Mumbai