1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2010 Shivlal @ Shivaji S/o.Deepaji Rathod, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Hadgaon, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.43/2009, registered in Hadgaon Police Station, which came to be registered on 10/06/2009 wherein the present applicant came to be arrested on 11/06/2009. The said offence is registered for the offence alleged u/s. 302, 323, 504, 147, 149, 148 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act.) 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused 2 the papers of investigation as the charge sheet is filed in the present case. 3. It can not be disputed that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Sunil Dhage about the incident took place in the night of 10/06/2009. This incident is about the attack on the father of complainant wherein it is stated that the present applicant assaulted on the head of deceased by iron rod. It can not be disputed that the post mortem notes shows the probable cause of death as head injury. It is tried to urge across the bar that the involvement shown of the present applicant in the present crime is due to political rivalry. It is also tried to urge and contended that on perusal of the surface injuries as shown in coloumn no.17 of the post mortem notes, and connection of the injuries shown in coloumn no.19 (a)(b)(ii) of the post morten notes, the possibility of this blow which shows that there is internal injury about fracture of the skull in absence of any superficial injury may be because of the assault by the stick and can not be because of the assault of the iron rod, and if it is so, the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the bail application. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed at least at this stage that, the cause of death of deceased as per the post mortem notes resulted due to head injury. It also can not be disputed that there is fracture to the skull and i.e. also to the 3 right side. The last injury shown in coloumn no.17 of the post mortem notes is the injury on the right side temporal region. If it is so, the last injuries shown in coloumn no.17 of the post mortem notes is connected with the injury found in coloumn no.19 of the post mortem notes. Not only the complainant, but it also transpires from the statement of other witnesses that this applicant gave blow on the head of the deceased. It is to be noted that this incident took place in the night hours and there is statement of eye witnesses about the presence and assault by this applicant, which resulted in the death of deceased. 6. In the premise, even though the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, there is direct nexus established between the evidence of the eye witnesses and the injuries noted in the post mortem notes, this is not a case when there is brutal attack on the deceased wherein the role played by the present applicant resulted in his death. No case made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.133-10