Sunil Punjaji Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra
{1} BA 1674 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1674 OF 2021 Sunil S/o Punjaji Chavan Age: 36 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o.Pardhiwada, Hingoli, Taluka & District - Hingoli (At present in Jail) ..Petitioner/Applicant (Orig. Accused No.2)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Ofcer, Police Station Hingoli (Town), Taluka & District - Hingoli.
..Respondent ...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Swapnil S. Rathi APP for Respondent : Shri V.S.Badakh ...
CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: 8th February, 2022 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard.
2.
Informant is the wife of Sunil Chavan (since deceased). Sunil Chavan is hereinafter referred to as deceased Chavan. On the date of incident i.e. on 15th October, 2020 at 07:30 p.m., there were celebrations on account of birthday of son of Kachru Baban Chavan. All including accused Ajesh @ Ajay Bansi Chavan were dancing. He was dancing with a sword in his hand. At
{2} BA 1674 OF 2021 about 08:00 to 08:30 p.m. accused Sachin Jilani Pawar took deceased Chavan with him on the pretext of giving Tobacco/Gutkha. Deceased Chavan accompanied accused Sachin Pawar. Applicant was also with them. Informant was looking at the applicant. All of a sudden accused Ajesh @ Ajay Chavan stabbed deceased Chavan in the chest by means of a sword. Accused Sachin Pawar held both the hands of deceased Chavan from behind. Accused Ritik Bharat Chavan assaulted on the back of deceased Chavan by means of a knife. Accused Arjun Baban Kale assaulted on the hand of deceased Chavan by means of a Gupti. Applicant and accused Rahul Kale assaulted deceased Chavan by means of stone and iron rod respectively. Deceased Chavan was shifted to the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. Accordingly, Crime No.0471 of 2020 came to be registered with Hingoli City Police Station, Dist.Hingoli, under Sections 302, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3.
Charge-sheet is fled. On perusal of the post mortem report, it is seen that deceased Chavan had incised stab injuries and incised wound and abrasion. Role of the applicant as discerned from the FIR and the statement of the witnesses is that
{3} BA 1674 OF 2021 he had assaulted deceased Chavan by means of a stone. Charge-sheet also shows that opinion of Medical Ofcer was solicited as to whether injury No.6 can be caused by iron rod. Medical Ofcer has opined that this can be caused by iron rod. Applicant is alleged to have inficted injury by means of a stone. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the role of the applicant is of assaulting deceased Chavan by means of a stone. Fatal blow is given by other accused and not by the applicant. While deciding application for bail, role of the applicant needs to be considered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Singh Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2021 Supreme Court 5004].
4.
Learned APP for the respondent submits that applicant has criminal antecedents. However, the ofences registered against the applicant are under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 65 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. No ofence against human body is registered against the applicant. There is no likelihood of applicant feeing from justice. Having regard to this and that charge-sheet is fled, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the order.
{4} BA 1674 OF 2021
ORDER
i) Bail Application is allowed.
ii) Applicant be released on P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.0471 of 2020, registered with Hingoli City Police Station, Dist.Hingoli, under Sections 302, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and on condition that he shall not tamper the prosecution evidence. iii) Bail Application is disposed of.
iv) It is clarifed that the observations made in the above order are restricted to the decision of this application only and the trial Court shall not get infuenced by the same and can come to its independent conclusion during trial. ( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE SPT