Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bhanudas S/O. Sitaram Lokhande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 February, 2019

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

                                                                         ba 100 19.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        BAIL APPLICATION NO. 100 of 2019.

Bhanudas s/o Sitaram Lokhande,
Age 55 years, Occ. Private Service,
(Security Supervisor) r/o Near
railway gate No. 56, Mukund Nagar,
Aurangabad.                                          ...     Applicant.

         Versus.

The State of Maharashtra.                            ...     Respondent.
                                   ...
                  Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S., Advocate for applicant.
                  Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent-State.

                                    CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
                                    DATE   :   12.02.2019


PER COURT :


.             The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. I-

240/2018 registered with City Chowk Police Station Aurangabad for

the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

after filing of the charge-sheet.


2.            Shortly stated the prosecution case is to the effect that the

applicant was serving with a Transport Office. On 27.08.2018 in the

afternoon the deceased arrived there and asked the applicant to come

along. When the latter refused the deceased tore apart the seat of the

applicant's scooter with a knife. The applicant got annoyed and pushed
                                                                                       1/4


     ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 23:51:03 :::
                                                                         ba 100 19.odt
the deceased.            Thereafter they indulged in a scuffle wherein the

applicant pushed him to the ground and kicked him two to three times

on the chest. As a result the deceased is alleged to have sustained a

vital injury to the left lung and died as a consequence instantaneously.

The matter was reported to police. The crime was registered. The

applicant was arrested on 25.09.2018 and is now claiming bail after

filing of the charge-sheet.


3.            The learned advocate for applicant submits that it was a one

of an incident. There was no motive at all. The deceased had arrived

and was seem to be an aggressor in as much as on a refusal by the

applicant to oblige him the deceased had torn apart the seat of the

applicant's scooter. The learned advocate would further submit that no

weapon was used. It is only in rage of moment that the applicant

seems to have kicked the deceased without any intention much less of

causing death. He would point out from the postmortem examination

report that no serious injury was sustained by the deceased on the

external side. It is only because of fracture of a rib that the lung was

punctured and it was the cause of death. There are no criminal

antecedents. Investigation is already over. There is no possibility of

applicant tampering the evidence or influencing the witnesses. He is

ready to abide by all the conditions and may be granted bail.


                                                                                      2/4


     ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 23:51:03 :::
                                                                         ba 100 19.odt
4.            Learned APP opposes the application. He submits that there

are eye witnesses. The applicant has assaulted the deceased. He has

kicked the deceased on the vital part of the body.                 The offence is

punishable up to death. Releasing the applicant on bail is likely to

prejudice the trial. The application may be rejected.


5.            It is true that there are eye witnesses in the form of office

incharge of the Transport Office Mr. Nanasaheb Khairnar, a tea stall

owner Indubai Jadhav and a pan stall owner Shaikh Babu as well as

couple of more shop owners and labourers who have all seen the

incident and have uniformly narrated it in the manner mentioned

herein above. They have consistently stated about the deceased having

torn apart the seat cover of the applicant's scooter. The deceased was

carrying a knife. It was also found lying at the spot. Thereafter the

applicant seems to have beaten the deceased with the kicks. Going by

the manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred, it is

apparent that it was merely in a heat of moment that the applicant

seems to have assaulted the deceased. No weapon was used. He has

kicked the deceased and one such kick seems to have targeted the lung

portion. In all probability the incident has taken place on the spur of

moment. There is no question of any pre-meditation.


6.            Considering all these aspects, when a single injury on a chest

                                                                                      3/4


     ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 23:51:03 :::
                                                                             ba 100 19.odt
that too by a kick has resulted in causing death, the applicant deserves

to be released on bail. Hence I pass following order.


                                        ORDER
      (i)         The application is allowed.

      (ii)        Applicant be released         on bail on his executing

personal recognizance for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and on furnishing a solvent surety in the like amount subject to the following conditions :

(a) He shall not tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.
(b) He shall attend the trial punctually.
(iii) Bail before the trial court.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made herein above are confined to the decision of this application and the learned Trial Judge shall not feel influenced by them.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 23:51:03 :::