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 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bharat Nanasaheb Pardhe @ Saddam Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2021

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi

Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi

                                           (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    BAIL APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2021

 Bharat Nanasaheb Pardhe @ Saddam
 Shaikh                                                        =     APPLICANT

          VERSUS

 The State of Maharashtra                                      = RESPONDENT/S
                        -----
 Mr.VY Bhide,Advocate for Applicant;
 Mr.AM Phule,APP for Respondent-State.
                        -----

                                  CORAM :        SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
                                  DATE :         8th April, 2021.

 PER COURT :-

 1.               The          applicant     has      been         arrested            on
 14.9.2019                in     connection        with       CR      No.568/2019
 registered             with      Sangamner        City     police          Station,
 District           Ahmednagar,for           the      offences          punishable
 under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of IPC.                                       He has
 filed the present application under Section 439 of
 Cr.P.C.


 2.               Heard         learned    Advocate        and       learned         APP
 appearing for respective parties. In order to cut
 short it can be stated that both of them have made
 submissions               in     support        of       their         respective
 contentions.


 3.               Before turning to the facts of the case,
 it is to be noted that entire process of collecting
 the evidence appears to be over and charge sheet


::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                          ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::
                                               (2)

 has      been        filed         before      the    JMFC,       Sangamner            on
 9.12.2019.                    Under       this     circumstance,              further
 physical custody of the applicant is not required
 for the purpose of investigation.


 4.               Perusal of the FIR would show that it has
 been lodged by one Shoaib Saleem Khan in respect of
 death of his uncle Sameer Samsherkhan.                                     It is in
 respect of incident dated 26.8.2019.                                But, the FIR
 has been lodged on 5.9.2019.                         There appears to be a
 considerable delay in lodging the FIR.                                     So also,
 the      contents             of    the      FIR   would      show        that       the
 informant           had       every    knowledge        about        the      alleged
 acts done by the present applicant.                               The informant
 says       that        the         present     applicant        has       performed
 marriage (Nikah) with one Muslim lady residing in
 the same lane, where the informant is residing and
 present applicant has converted to Muslim at the
 time of the said marriage.                         On 26.8.2019, at about
 9.00 am, deceased Sameer was brought to the house
 of the informant by the Manager of a country liquor
 shop,        situated          in     the    Chowk     near      house        of     the
 informant            and       one     Vishal        Namdeo       Awhad.             The
 informant found that there was an injury                                       to his
 uncle to the left eye-brow and it was sutured.
 When the informant asked Vishal Awhad as to what
 had happened, he told that Sameer had gone to the
 liquor shop at about 7.00 am for drinking liquor
 and at that time there was quarrel between Sameer
 and the present applicant. The present applicant
 had assaulted him by fists and kicks and by saying
 that he would kill him.                          Sameer was thrown on the



::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                           ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::
                                            (3)

 ground forcibly.                     Sameer sustained injury near his
 eye.         He was taken to Dr.Kute's hospital where the
 bandage was done.                    After sutured the wound, it was
 told that Sameer was not speaking at that time.
 For      a    day,       he     could    not     move      and      was      sleeping
 throughout.                    Therefore,       he     was       taken        by      the
 informant and his brother in-law on 27.8.2019 to
 Government             hospital,         Ghulewadi.                He      was       then
 referred to Loni Pravara hospital.                             He was taken in
 an ambulance there.                    But since an ICU room was not
 available,             it      was     told     that       Sameer        should         be
 shifted to another hospital.                            The informant says
 that since they are poor and unable to raise the
 funds to meet the expenses of hospitalization, they
 brought him back to the house.                             The informant had
 seen the CCTV footage of the liquor shop, wherein
 he     found        that        the    applicant        had       assaulted           and
 thrown Sameer on the ground.                         On the next day, i.e.
 on 28.8.2019, he contacted the applicant and told
 that due to his assault, his uncle is serious.                                        The
 present         applicant            represented        him      that      he      would
 bear the hospital charges, but no complaint                                      should
 be     lodged.                This    proposal       was     accepted          by     the
 informant as he had intention that his uncle should
 get cured.             The present applicant gave an amount of
 Rs.10,000/- to the informant on 30.8.2019 and on
 the next day, along with the applicant it is stated
 that         the    injured          Sameer,    the      informant           and      his
 friend took Sameer to SMBT hospital at Dhamangaon
 Ghoti.             It is stated that the present applicant
 went for registration of the patient and thereafter
 Sameer          was       admitted.             He     was       regaining            his



::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                            ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::
                                              (4)

 consciousness                 intermittently        and       he     used       to     say
 that he has been assaulted by the applicant.                                             On
 3.9.2019, it was told by the doctor that due to the
 assault, there were clots of the blood in the brain
 of the deceased.                    The doctor further told that he
 is serious and he should be shifted to JJ hospital
 at Mumbai or should be taken back at home.                                       But in
 the meantime, the applicant had ran away from the
 hospital.           Therefore,         they       brought         Sameer        to     the
 house on 4.9.2019 and then lodged the report.                                            It
 can be seen that when the report was lodged, it was
 under        Section           307    of    IPC.           But      appears          that
 thereafter Sameer expired on 30.9.2019.


 4.               An important point to be noted is that
 when       the       FIR        was   lodged       on      5.9.2019           and      the
 deceased              expired          on         30.9.2019,               why         the
 Investigating                  Officer       has        not        recorded            his
 statement or even tried to record it at any point
 of time, is a mystery.                     Sameer appears to have been
 at     home       from         4.9.2019     to     30.9.2019.               The      post
 mortem report gives probable cause of death as head
 injury         with           its   complications.                Column          No.17,
 indicates three injuries, as follows, -


                  a)   Therapeutic  tracheotomy  wound  of
                  diameter 02 cms present over neck in mid
                  line;

                  b)   Injection mark, present                           over lower
                  third    of   left  forearm,                            anteriorly
                  therapeutic;

                  c)   Injection mark present over right
                  hand dorsum, therapeutic, associated with
                  swelling and oedematous


::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                             ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::
                                            (5)


 5.                Column No. 19 says that there was injury
 under scalp on reflection and hematoma was present
 at right temporal region, involving right temporal
 is muscle and corresponding fascia of size 10 cm X
 05 cm.            The results of the examination of brain
 have also been given.


 6.                Learned           APP   has   strongly          stated          that
 there is evidence in the form of CCTV footage from
 the liquor shop, showing that the present applicant
 had thrown Sameer forcibly on the ground in the
 said scuffle.                  Further, there were eye-witnesses,
 who were present in the liquor shop at the relevant
 time.        Though this evidence appear to be there, the
 question, that arises is, whether the applicant was
 also under the influence of liquor and Sameer was
 also under the influence of liquor ? If they were
 under the influence of liquor, then as regards the
 present           applicant          is   concerned,       whether          he     had
 intention to kill Sameer.                         Another fact is to be
 noted        is     that       if    Sameer     would    have       been        given
 immediate and timely medical assistance, then his
 life would have been saved or not.                                  As per the
 statement            of       the     eye-witness        and      even       it      is
 reflected in the FIR that said Vishal Awhad and the
 Manager had taken Sameer to the hospital and it
 appears that only sutured of the wound and bandage
 was done.            Therefore, even at this stage, there are
 doubts as to whether the case would fall under
 Section 302 of IPC or not.                      With the delay that has
 been       caused         in   lodging      the    FIR    as     well       as     for
 giving the treatment to the uncle by the informant,


::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                         ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::
                                              (6)

 it leads this Court to exercise the discretionary
 powers. Though charge sheet is filed, it would take
 long time for the trial to stand and, therefore,
 the applicant need not be asked to linger in jail.
 Hence following order, -
                                         ORDER

i. The Bail Application stands allowed.

ii. The applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No.568/2019 registered with Sangamner City police Station, District Ahmednagar,for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of IPC. on PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity nor shall tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

iv. The applicant shall comply with the requirements set out in Para No.12 (1) to (6) of Chapter-I of Criminal Manual, whichever are applicable.

vi. Bail before the trial court.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE BDV ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:37:17 :::