Anil Vasant Bhondave v. State Of Maharashtra

2023:BHC-AS:25742 Diksha Rane 25.ba.460-23.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2023 ANIL VASANT BHONDAVE ..APPLICANT VS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Adv. D. D. Rananaware for the Applicant.

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 342 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter 'IPC' for short) registered on 13/8/2020 vide C.R. No.396/2020 with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Taluka - Baramati, District - Pune.

3.

The date of the incident is 12/8/2020. The complainant (now deceased) was sleeping in his house along with his family members. At that time, the applicant who is the real brother of the deceased complainant, came to the house of the complainant and started abusing him for having spoiled his life. He further alleged that the applicant closed the door 1/2

Diksha Rane 25.ba.460-23.doc from outside, broke the glass panel of the windows of the house and poured some petrol and set the complainant on fire. The complainant suffered injuries on his head, face, chest, stomach and back. While extinguishing the fire, even the complainant's wife suffered the injuries. The complainant succumbed to the injuries. There are eye witnesses to the incident.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the eye witnesses are close family members of the deceased, therefore, they are interested. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in custody for more than three years, therefore, it is a good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

5.

In my view, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and having regard to the statement of the complainant recorded prior to his death and also that of the witnesses, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

6.

The application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) 2/2