1 apln1869-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1869 OF 2010 Shyam Shivram Kasle. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 04TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant, the sole accused, for his release on bail during pendency of the Sessions case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The first informant, deceased and present applicant were proceeding towards home after a days work at Uttan Bhayander area. An amount of Rs.20/- was given by their employer to the present applicant for the purpose of transportation. Deceased, a young boy of 21 years, asked for 2 apln1869-10 the said amount from the present applicant. Present applicant is also a young boy of 20 years. Even the first informant/complainant is also a young boy of 18 years. 3. Surprising enough, only on such petty ground of amount of Rs.20/- which is demanded by the deceased, there was a quarrel between the applicant and the deceased. Deceased tried to get the said amount from the applicant. However, the applicant resisted and in return started assaulting and infact strangulated the deceased with his hands. In order to save himself, the deceased tried to escape from the clutches of the applicant and gave a fist blow on the nose of the applicant. As such, by such retort, the applicant became more enraged and more severely pressed the neck of the deceased. The complainant who was accompanying this fighting boys, tried to intervene, however, without any fruitful effect. On the contrary, applicant vigorously pressed the neck of the deceased and after sometime he left the spot. Deceased was taken to some hospital for medical treatment after the other relatives appeared on the spot. In the hospital, deceased 3 apln1869-10 was declared dead on admission. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant tried to submit that further statement of the complainant boy and also the other statement of one of the witnesses indicate that after the incident present applicant had not initially ran away but was present on the spot and also he tried to assist in taking the deceased to the hospital. In the opinion of this Court, the conduct attributed to the present applicant by way of mentioning in the FIR and the statements of other witnesses is rather of a serious nature and it was not such a conduct that there was only a fight in which simple and innocuous action was taken by the applicant. On the contrary, the allegations are that the applicant tried to strangulate the deceased with more severity when he was obstructed firstly by the victim and secondly by the first informant who was then present. 5. Whether or not present facts will attract squarely the provisions of 302 IPC or whether the matter can be diluted to some other minor section of culpable murder not amounting 4 apln1869-10 to murder would be a question to be determined during the trial. However, at this stage of bail, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicant on bail. Hence the order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.1869 of 2010 for bail is rejected. [ii] Directions are given to the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the Sessions Case to expeditiously deal with the matter without being influenced by the observations made in the present order so far as merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 23.apln1869-10