Bombay High CourtAPPA/627/2015rejected

Manoj Mahadeo Mude (In Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. P.S. Seloo, Distt. Wardha

2016-01-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

appa627.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.627 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2015 Manoj Mahadeo Mude ..vs..

State of Mah., through Police Station Officer, Police Station Seloo, District Wardha ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri Nishant Gode, counsel for the applicant/appellant. Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/respondent.

CORAM

: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 5, 2016.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Shri Nishant Gode and learned Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/respondent State Shri R.S. Nayak.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Shri Nishant Gode fairly points out that at this stage the only relevant fact, which can be looked into, is the statement given by the victim. She has stated that in quarrel when the appellant was under influence, he poured kerosene and set her on fire. However, thereafter, he attempted to extinguish it, brought autorickshaw, and also got her admitted in the hospital. .....2/-

appa627.15 She was treated there for two months and was taken to her parental place where she continued to receive treatment. She expired almost after six months. He, therefore, states that offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

Learned Addl.P.P.

for the nonapplicant/respondent State Shri R.S. Nayak submits that even if arguments, as advanced, are accepted, the case for grant of bail is not made out. He has no objection if the matter is heard expeditiously.

We have considered the material on record.

We find that no case for grant of bail at this stage is made out. We, therefore, reject the application. Place the criminal appeal for final hearing in the week commencing from 13.6.2016.

JUDGE JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-