Karan Dilip More v. The State Of Maharashtra

Muj 27.ba.2583.2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2583 OF 2017 Karan Dilip More ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.L. Chaudhari I/b. Ms. Rachana Divekar for the Applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

DATE : 27th NOVEMBER, 2017 P.C.:

.

This is an Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in C.R. No. 267/2017 dated 07.06.2017 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, District Pune for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the First Informant namely Vaibhav Sawant had pacified the quarrel which took place at about 10.00 p.m under the influence of liquor amongst the Applicant, Suraj Shejal, Yogesh Kane and Zaker on 4.6.2017 and due the said grudge the Applicant on 6.6.2017 at about 11.00 p.m. along with other accused persons assaulted the First Informant with knife on his stomach. That the intestine of the informant protruded out due to the said assault. The First Informantion Report is lodged by the injured witness Vaibhav 1/2

Muj 27.ba.2583.2017.doc Sawant. During the course of investigation, the Applicant came to be arrested and after the completion of investigation the police have submitted charge sheet. 3.

Perused the documents annexed to the application, the allegation made by the First Informant is duly corroborated by the medical certificate issued by Bharati Vidytapeeth Univesity Medical College Hospital and Research Centre. It is stated in the certificate that the injury received by the informant is grievous in nature and the First Informant was required to undergo operation under Anesthesia.

4.

It appears to me that for trivial reason, the Applicant along with other accused persons assaulted the First Informant with sharp edged weapon endangering his life. The said act is committed with premeditation by the Applicant.

5.

After taking into consideration the facts mentioned herein above and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that the Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

6.

Application is accordingly rejected.

(A.S.GADKARI, J.) 2/2