Rajaram Santaram Tekawane v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2016 Rajaram Santaram Takawane ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr. Omprakash Pandey for the Applicant.

Mr. J.H. Ramugade, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2016.

P. C. :

This is an application for bail filed by the aforesaid Applicant, who is facing trial in Sessions Case No.3 of 2016 arising from Crime No.223 of 2015 registered at Yavat Police Station, DistrictPune, for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. 2.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.7.2015 at about 6.45 p.m. the Applicant herein pushed the deceased. As a result of which he sustained head injury and expired on 28.7.2015, while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

3.

Heard Mr. Omprakash Pandey, the learned counsel for the Applicant. He has submitted that the material on record does not 1/5

prima facie indicate that the Applicant was involved in committing murder of the deceased-Ishwar. He has submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the said crime. He has further submitted that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident and the delay is not satisfactorily explained.

4.

Mr. J.H. Ramugade, the learned APP has submitted that the evidence of the eye witness prima facie indicates that the Applicant had pushed the deceased and as a result of which the deceased had a fall and he sustained head injury. The post mortem report also corroborates the cause of the death, which was due to head injuries. 5.

I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent -State. The records prima facie indicate that one Ishwar was admitted at Dr. Diwekar's Hospital on 24.7.2015 in an unconscious state. He was referred to Sasoon Hospital, Pune. The records reveal that said Ishwar had expired on 28.7.2015. The post mortem report reveals that he had sustained head injury and several abrasions and that the death was due to complications arising from head injury.

2/5

6.

The statements of Navnath and Santosh, who are the nephews of the deceased, prima facie reveal that on 23.7.2015 at about 4.45 p.m. they had seen the deceased and the Applicant herein near Shrinath Hospital and they had heard the Applicant abusing the deceased over the issue of consuming liquor. They had seen that the Applicant had slapped his uncle Ishwar and thereafter pushed him and as a result his uncle had fallen on the tar road. The Applicant as well as the deceased used to consume liquor together and therefore, he did not pay much attention. On the next date i.e. 24.7.2015 his uncle was admitted in Sasoon Hospital.

7.

The aforesaid statements of the aforesaid witnesses prima facie reveal that the Applicant and the deceased were known to each other and were drinking partners. On 23.7.2015 there was an altercation between the deceased and the Applicant over the issue of alcohol and in the process, the Applicant herein had slapped the deceased and pushed him and as a result of which the deceased had fallen on the road. It is to be noted that the said witnesses had not shifted the deceased to the hospital.

8.

The statement of Ramkrishna indicates that on 24.7.2015 at 6.00 a.m. he had seen the deceased lying in the paddy field. Since 3/5

he was unconscious, he informed one Kalidas, brother of the deceased and took the deceased to the hospital. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident, according to the witnesses Navnath and Santosh had occurred on the road in front of Shrinath Hospital. The statements of these two witnesses do not indicate that the deceased had sustained head injuries. Whereas the statement of Ramkrishna reveals that he had seen the deceased fallen in the paddy field. There is no prima facie material to indicate that the Applicant had inflicted injury on the vital part of the body by means of any weapon. Furthermore, the records reveal that the alleged incident had occurred on 23.7.2015 however, the FIR came to be registered on 28.7.2015. The Applicant is a permanent resident of Pune-District and hence, there are no chances of his absconding. The investigation is already completed. Chargesheet has been filed and the Applicant is in custody since 28.7.2015. The presence of the Applicant is no longer required in the custody. 9.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and the nature of allegations levelled against the Applicant, presence of the Applicant is no longer required in the custody. Hence, the application for bail is allowed on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail on 4/5

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties to the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall not interfere with the witnesses or tamper with any evidence.

(iii) The Applicant shall not leave Pune-District without prior permission of the Sessions Judge, Pune. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 5/5