Bombay High Court
SAMEER RAMCHANDRA KHARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
In view of the appellant’s extended period of incarceration and the precedent set in Saudan Singh v. State, the Court suspended the conviction’s operative effect and granted bail pending the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Sameer Ramchandra Kharkar, was convicted in 2017 for murder and house‑trespass (IPC §§302, 452) arising from a knife‑attack on 23 April 2015. He contended that there were no eye‑witnesses, that he had exercised his right under Section 106, and that the incident amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (IPC 304 (ii)) due to provocation. Having spent more than eleven years in custody, he sought suspension of the sentence and release on bail. The Court, invoking the principles from Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), held that the prolonged incarceration warranted relief. Accordingly, the trial court’s sentence was suspended pending appeal and the appellant was released on bail subject to strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under IPC Section 302 is appropriate or should be treated as IPC Section 304 (ii) due to provocation
- Whether the appellant’s prolonged custody justifies suspension of the sentence pending appeal
- Whether bail can be granted to an appellant convicted of murder after more than eleven years of imprisonment
- Whether the appellant has discharged the burden of proof under Section 106 of the IPC
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 106, 302, 304(2), 452
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- murder
- culpable homicide
- IPC
- Section 302
- Section 304 (ii)
- prolonged incarceration
- right to silence
Judgment
Digitally
signed by 322-APEAL-795-2017(1).doc
RUPALI
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.08.21
19:12:52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2703 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 795 OF 2017
Sameer Ramchandra Kharkar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani a/w Mr. Fardin Shaikh h/f Khan Abdul Wahab
for the Applicant.
Mrs. M.M.Mhatre, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
2. This is an application for suspension of sentence enlarging
the applicant on bail. The application is opposed by the learned APP.
Wakodikar 1/5
322-APEAL-795-2017(1).doc
It is the submission of the learned APP that instead of enlarging the
applicant on bail, the appeal be heard finally.
3. It is not possible to hear the appeal finally considering the
pendency of the matter for final hearing.
4. The date of the offence is 23 rd April, 2015. It is alleged
that the applicant committed assault with the knife. There are
multiple injuries. The prosecution case is that on 23 rd April, 2015, at
about 10.00 p.m., the informant and others heard sound from the
house of the deceased. The informant by climbing on the
neighboring room saw through the window that the accused was
coming down from the stairs of the house. When the informant and
other people entered the house, the accused was found hiding in the
bathroom. Upon going upstairs, the deceased was found lying dead.
The alleged incident was took place at about 9.30 p.m.
5. The applicant was convicted by the Trial Court on 14th
Wakodikar 2/5
322-APEAL-795-2017(1).doc
September, 2017 for the offence under Section 302 and Section 452
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits
that there is no eye-witnesses. It is submitted that the applicant has
discharged his burden under Section 106 by explaining facts which
was within his exclusive knowledge. Learned Counsel for the
applicant submitted that the accused and the deceased were in the
relationship and at the relevant time, the deceased had abused the
applicant and his sister by uttering filthy language and abused his
sister and that this provocation resulted in him losing his self-control
resulting in assault. Alternatively, the learned Counsel for the
applicant submitted that this case is fall under Section 304(ii) of the
Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
7. The applicant is now in custody for more than 11 years
and 3 months. In the light of the principles enunciated in Saudan
Wakodikar 3/5
322-APEAL-795-2017(1).doc
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 697 we are
inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. In the facts and circumstances, we enlarge the applicant
on the bail on the following terms and conditions:
ORDER
(I) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case no.
718 of 2015 shall stand suspended during the pendency of the
Appeal.
(ii) The Applicant – Sameer Ramchandra Kharkar shall be released
on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties of the like amount.
(iii) The Applicant shall report once in two months to the Police
Station where the crime was registered. The said reporting shall be
on 1st Monday of the month when the reporting is due.
Wakodikar 4/5
322-APEAL-795-2017(1).doc
(iv) The Applicant shall give his address, mobile number to the
Police Inspector of the Police Station where the crime was registered
and in case of any change thereof, same shall also be intimated to the
said Police Officer.
(v) The Applicant shall remain present before this Court, as and
when the matter is taken up for hearing.
(vi) The Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 5/5
Checking your session…