SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5430

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ
CHANDRAKANT RAOSAHEB TAMBE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2024 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nilesh Joshi, Mr. V. P. Latange
For the Respondents: Ms. S. N. Deshmukh

The court upholds conviction under Section 302 IPC and denies bail due to substantial evidence.

Headnote:The application under Section 302 of IPC seeks bail for the convicted applicant for life imprisonment. The applicant was convicted based on the consistent eyewitness accounts of the murder. The Trial Court upheld the conviction after considering substantial medical evidence and details of the crime scene. The court finds sufficient evidence supporting the conviction, ruling no justification for bail. Consequently, the application is denied.

Table of Content
1. application for bail after a murder conviction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evidence and court's observation on conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's ruling on the application for bail. (Para 6 , 7)

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

Dated : July 28, 2025 PER COURT :-

1. By this application, applicant / accused who is convicted under Section 302 of IPC, is seeking suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment and his release on bail.

2. The applicant was charged alongwith 11 (Eleven) other accused for commission of murder of Bajirao Kalyanrao Tambe, on 26.05.2020. The prosecution alleged that the applicant assaulted deceased with knife and inflicted repeated blows on his stomach, due to which, he expired.

3. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence and considering the arguments, acquitted 11 accused and convicted the applicant / accused as aforesaid.

4. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP for State and learned Advocate for respondent No. 2. Perused the record.

5. Evidence of two eye-witnesses is recorded by the Trial Court which is consistent on the point of assault by the applicant on the deceased. The deceased has suffered four stab wounds, three on the stomach and one on the right under-arm. The doctor has opined that the death due to excessive haemorrhage due to stab injury to vital organs i.e. liver, spleen, stomach and descending colon (large intestine). The murder weapon is recovered at the instance of applicant / accused and CA Report shows that blood of blood group ‘AB’, of the deceased was found on the said weapon.

6. Prima facie, we find sufficient material on record to sustain the conviction of the applicant / accused. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted the applicant. No case is made out by the applicant for suspension of sentence.

7. The application, being devoid of merits, is rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top