Bombay High Court
KARAN NAMDEO BANKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court allowed the application, suspended the life sentence, and granted bail on execution of a bond.
Summary
The appellant, Karan Namdeo Bankar, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, applied for suspension of his sentence and bail pending appeal. The prosecution’s case relied on three eye‑witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC rather than Section 161, and there were contradictions and an unexamined informant. The defence argued that the procedural lapses and the appellant’s young age warranted bail. The court examined whether the procedural irregularities affected the conviction and whether the offence could be deemed culpable homicide instead of murder. Finding that the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon and that the evidential deficiencies raised reasonable doubt, the court suspended the life sentence and released the appellant on bail with a bond. The application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the life imprisonment sentence can be suspended pending the disposal of the appeal.
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder conviction on the ground of procedural irregularities in witness statements.
- Whether the failure to record statements under Section 161 CrPC and the absence of a test identification parade affect the validity of the conviction.
- Whether the offence may be reduced from murder (Sec. 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec. 304 IPC) for the purpose of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 304
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- life imprisonment
- appeal
- Section 161 CrPC
- Section 164 CrPC
- eye‑witness testimony
- murder
- culpable homicide
- procedural irregularities
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44169-DB
(1)
Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3821 OF 2025
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 749 of 2025
KARAN NAMDEO BANKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
….
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A. S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
ORDER:-
1. Heard rival submissions.
2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original
accused in Sessions Case No. 498 of 2023, is seeking
suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment,
during the pendency of this appeal and also his release on
bail.
3. As per the prosecution story, P.W.1-informant Deepali
Baban Kuche was residing with her husband along with two
children. Her husband was doing the business of selling illicit
liquor. The said business was being run in a shop adjacent to
their house. Namdeo Bankar i.e. father of accused used to
(2)
Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt
visit his liquor shop daily to consume liquor. Informant’s
husband and Namdeo Bankar had friendly relations. On
10.05.2023, at about 7.30 p.m. in a routine manner, Namdeo
Bankar came to informant’s house for consuming liquor. He
consumed liquor for about half an hour by sitting in the
shed/shop and then went away. Thereafter, his son Karan i.e.
present applicant/accused came to informant’s house holding
an axe in his hand. He assaulted informant’s husband with
axe, but that time deceased husband of the informant had
snatched the same. Thereafter, applicant/accused pelted
stones over informant’s husband and went away from there.
At that time informant’s husband told the informant that since
there was quarrel in the house of accused, he was angry and
in the fit of anger, the accused tried to kill him.
4. After some time on the same day, the applicant/accused
and Suraj Bankar, child-in-conflict with law, came to the
house of informant and they started abusing informant’s
husband saying as to why informant’s husband was allowing
their father to consume liquor. When informant’s husband
was talking to informant, applicant/accused suddenly
inflicted knife blows on the back of informant’s husband.
Informant’s husband fell down and raised shouts. At that time,
(3)
Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt
P.W.3 and P.W.5 came to help them. Informant’s husband
shifted to Rural Hospital, Khultabad for medical treatment.
However, declared brought dead. The informant lodged a
report with Khultabad Police Station. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
applicant/accused.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that,
though the prosecution has claimed that there were three eye
witnesses, but their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
were not recorded and the concerned learned Magistrate
directly recorded their statements under Section 164 of Code
of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, considering the
contradictions among these witnesses, it appears that they
were not present on the spot at the relevant time, but
subsequently came to the spot. According to him, the person,
who had given the information of the incident, was not
examined and no test identification parade of the
applicant/accused was held for Ramkrushna Aadhane (P.W.5),
who was not knowing the assailant at all. He further
submitted that, the incident had taken place due to sudden
quarrel and considering the age of this applicant, coupled with
the fact that, the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future,
he can be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal.
(4)
Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt
6. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly supported
the conviction of the applicant/accused and submitted that,
the learned Trial Judge, after considering the evidence of eye
witnesses, has convicted him, and therefore, now there is no
case made out by the applicant for his release on bail. As such,
he prayed for dismissal of the application.
7. Admittedly, the prosecution case is based on evidence of
three eye witnesses, namely Deepali Baban Kuche (P.W.1),
Prabhakar Bisan Sonawane (P.W.3) and Ramkrushna Aadhane
(P.W.5). However, the Investigating Officer, during the
investigation, did not record their statements under Section
161 of the Cr. P.C., but directly recorded their statements
under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. Moreover, there are certain
contradictions in the versions of these witnesses indicating
that they might not be present at the time of incident.
Moreover, one Akhtar Patel, who had given the information of
the incident for the first time, was not examined and his
statement was also not recorded by the concerned
Investigating Officer. It appears that the age of
applicant/accused was only of 19 years at the time of incident
and there was sudden quarrel at the time of incident between
himself and deceased on the ground that the deceased was
(5)
Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt
allowing his father to consume liquor regularly. Further, the
appeal being filed in the last year is not likely to be heard in
near future. Therefore, considering the possibility of offence
against the applicant being converted into lesser offence, under
Section 304 instead of 302 of the I.P.C. we are of the opinion
that the applicant can be released on bail during the pendency
of appeal, by suspending his substantive sentence of
imprisonment. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
(A) The application is allowed.
(B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life
imposed upon the applicant/accused Karan Namdeo
Bankar in Sessions Case No. 498 of 2023 under
judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passes by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is
hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
(C) The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or more
sureties in the like amount, if not required in any other
case.
(D) The application is accordingly disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
Checking your session…