Ramlal Nana Barela v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:16805 BA 325/25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 325 OF 2025 RAMLAL NANA BARELA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Koli Sunil P.
APP for Respondents/State : Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav ...
CORAM :
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE :
01/07/2025 P.C. :
1.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2.
The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested on 21.4.2024 in connection with Crime No. 122/2024 dated 20.4.2024 registered with Jalgaon Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.
3.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is behind bars for last 14 months, investigation of the matter is completed and chargesheet is filed. The learned counsel submits that even taking the prosecution case as it is, the incident happened due to sudden provocation and it would not fall within the provision of section 302 of I.P.C. 4.
The learned APP strongly opposed the application on the grounds of seriousness of the offence and that wife of the applicant is the eye witness in this offence. The learned APP therefore prays for rejection of the application.
5.
Material on record prima facie indicates that there is eye witness to the incident i.e. the wife of the present applicant, who has stated in her
BA 325/25 statement that the applicant has assaulted the deceased by means of axe for the reason that the the deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of the applicant. The axe used to inflict the injury on the deceased has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. Considering the evidence on record, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. 6.
At this stage, the learned counsel submits that if this Court is not inclined to grant relief, liberty may be granted to the applicant to file application for bail if the trial does not commences within one year from today.
7.
In view of the above, the application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to apply afresh for bail if the trial is does not commences within one years from today.
8.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
9.
The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] SSC/