1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application [BA] No. 564 of 2011 (Sanjay Maroti Hepat and another Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Prafull Mohagaonkar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for the State/non-applicant. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. DATE : 9 th NOVEMBER, 2011 1] Heard. 2] This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicants on bail against whom offence bearing Crime No. 24/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 302, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is registered with Police Station Shirpur, District Yavatmal, 3] On 09/05/2011, at about 7:30 p.m., there was altercation between the deceased Ashok Jungari and the accused Bandu Hepat. Thereafter, at about 8:00 p.m. when the deceased, his Son Swapnil were proceeding in Auto- Rickshaw, which was driven by Pintya, the accused Bandu Hepat intercepted them and dragged the deceased out. Thereafter, the accused Bandu, Sanjay assaulted the deceased 2 with iron rod and other two accused viz. Raju and Anil assaulted the deceased with stick. The injured was firstly carried to the Police Station and from there he was refetred to Primary Health Centre, Shirpur and thereafter to Civil Hospital Chandrapur. On the next day i.e. 10/05/2011, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 4] In the postmortem note, five injuries in the nature of lacerated wounds above left eyebrow, over left eye, over right eyebrow and over chin were found. On left frontal region of scalp and over occipital region, haemotoma was found and left side frontal bone was found fractured. The death was caused due to 'Shock and Haemorrhage due to head injury'. 5] Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, on 8th September, 2011, rejected the bail application holding that prima-facie case under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants-accused. 6] Learned Advocate for the applicants contends that there was considerable delay in recording the statements of Pintya and Swapnil. The role attributed to the present applicants is of using the stick. On the person of the deceased, injuries possible by stick blows were not seen. He further submits that the involvement of both the applicants for the offfence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal 3 Code is not made out and, therefore, they may be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. 7] With the assistance of learned A.P.P., Case-Diary is perused mainly the statements of Swapnil and Pintya. Both are the eye witnesses. It is revealed from their statements that the accused Bandu intercepted the auto-rickshaw and pulled the deceased out. Then Sanjay (applicant no.1 herein) assaulted the deceased with iron rod. At that time, Raju (applicant no. 2 herein) and one Anil gave blows of stick on the person of the deceased. The statements of Swapnil and Pintya were recorded on 13/05/2011 and 14/05/2011 respectively. The eyewitness account clearly points out the involvement of both the applicant-accused in commission of the alleged offence. When the applicants and other accused are being tried with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, some of the accused were armed with iron rod and other were armed with the stick is insignificant. Secondly, 2-3 days delay in recording the statements of witnesses cannot be questioned at this stage. 8] The contention of learned Advocate for the applicants that there were no injuries seen on the person of deceased, which were possible by stick is also not correct. Haematoma on left frontal region of scalp and haematoma over occipital region were also noticed. Both these witnesses 4 had stated that the stick blow were dealt on the head of the deceased. 9] Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and involvement of the applicants in the offence, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the bail application. The application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw