Arun Ratan Dabhade v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:13040 {1} 147-25-BA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2025 Arun S/o. Ratan Dabhade, Age-35 years, Occu.: Servoce, R/o. Tilekar Vasti, Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Kopargaon Police Station, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar .....Respondent .....
Mr. Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N.D. Batule, APP for Respondent - State Mr. Shaikh Samir Ahmad Saifuddin, Advocate for Informant .....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 02 May 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 05 May, 2025 ORDER :
1.
Present application is for grant of regular bail on account of arrest of applicant in Crime No.0074 of 2024, registered at Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that, applicant is arrested in above crime on 19.02.2024. That, FIR is of the same day i.e. on 19.02.2024. That, there are allegations of use of hammer on
{2} 147-25-BA head. That, applicant is the husband of deceased and serving in army. That, there are allegations of suspicion on character. That, there is no eyewitness. That, investigation is over. That, hammer is already seized. That, charge-sheet is filed on 7.06.2024. That, no purpose would be served by further detention of the applicant. As applicant iss ready to abide all and any conditions imposed by this Court, learned counsel urges for grant of bail.
4.
The learned APP as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the application on the ground that, serious offence of murder has been committed. That, previous bail application was rejected on merits, when disinclination was shown by this Court. There is an eyewitness account in the form of statements of Sagar and Sadashiv. That, hammer is used in commission of the offence. That, death is said to be due to head injury. It is pointed out that there were previous threats to kill, which were finally executed. For all above reasons, they urges for rejection of bail. 5.
Heard. Perused the papers. FIR dated 19.02.2024 is at the instance of one Kiran Pathare, who seems to be the father of deceased Pooja, who was married to present applicant. It appears from the FIR that, present applicant was working in the army, and used to visit his native during holidays. He has reported that,
{3} 147-25-BA applicant was addicted to liquor and he suspected the character of his daughter and beat her, which she regularly reported. He reported that in the year 2023 also after suspecting character of his daughter, he beat her and caused her grievous injuries. At that time, the present applicant also threatened that he would not spare her and further threatened to kill her. On 19.02.2024, informant getting news from his nephew about Pooja beaten and admitted in the Hospital, and that, she was assaulted by hammer on the head. Hence, the above report.
6.
Postmortem report shows that there was compound fracture with CLW on occipital scalp. Death is shown to be due to the head injury. Learned APP has invited the attention of this Court to the statements of Sagar and Sadasiv. On going through the same, it is revealed that, they have seen a lady lying and one man assaulting her with someone, and after said man was running, he was given chase and the man was caught i.e. present applicant. Therefore, as submitted above, there is an eyewitness account. 7.
This Court after hearing the submissions had called the report from the learned trial Court and the same shows that learned trial Court has conveyed that further 18 months would be required for
{4} 147-25-BA conclusion of trial. However, considering the above material and nature of allegations against applicant, even though charge-sheet is filed, this Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed. Hence, following order.
ORDER
Bail Application is rejected.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGE S P Rane