( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4424 OF 2010 Trimukh Narayan Dhokre, R/o Qureshinagar, Babhalgaon Naka, Latur, District Latur. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for the respondent/State, assisted by Mr. A.S. Bayas, advocate for original complainant. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 26th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the investigation papers. 3. The alleged incident occurred on 7th February, 2010 in the agricultural land of the parties. It appears that there was dispute about the boundary of the land Gat No. 152 ( 2 ) which stands in the name of the father of the applicant. The lands of the applicant and informant Dayanand, who are cousins interse, were measured. There was dispute pending in the Court regarding common boundaries in between the said lands. The FIR purports to show that there was a bore-well adjacent to the common boundary and after the measurement, it was found to be within the boundary limits of the land of informant Dayanand. On 7th February, 2010, the applicant alongwith his son and relatives went to the agricultural land Gat No. 152 where the informant and his mother alongwith father and son were standing. The applicant and his son and relatives started abusing parents of the informant when they obstructed him for removal of the pump-set of the bore-well. The applicant assaulted mother of the informant by means of an axe. The relatives of the applicant assaulted father and son of the informant. He too was assaulted. His mother by name Dhrupadabai sustained multiple injuries. She died in the hospital on 10th February, 2010. 4. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was released on bail because initially, the offence was registered under section 143, 148, 147, 149, 324 and 325 of the I.P. Code and the trial Court was pleased to grant the discretionary ( 3 ) relief to him alongwith the other co-accused. It is only after the death of Dhrupadabai that section 302 of the I.P. Code came to be added and the applicant was again arrested. 5. The recitals of the FIR prima facie show that intention of the applicant and his relatives was to remove the pump-set of the bore-well and other articles. The deceased and her husband had objected for such removal. Needless to say, the incident was outcome of civil dispute regarding the boundaries of the lands. There was no threat given by the applicant on any earlier occasion. The incident occurred as a result of fracas between deceased Dhrupadabai and her husband on one side and the applicant and his relatives on the other side. It appears prima facie that the applicant and his relatives made it a prestige point to remove the pump-set from the bore-well, for the reason that they had installed it and had dug that bore-well though it was found within the limits of the land of the informant. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, it does not prima facie appear that intention of the applicant was to cause culpable homicide by eliminating the deceased - Dhrupadabai. Secondly, once it is explicit that he was ( 4 ) released on bail by the Sessions Court on earlier occasion, then the bail granted to him could not have been cancelled only because subsequently section 302 of the I.P. Code was added. The bail granted to him on the same set of facts should not have been reconsidered and the same order ought not to have been revoked without any substantial reason. It is argued by learned A.P.P. that the applicant is likely to interfere with the fair trial. No such apprehension was expressed before the Court of Sessions. Considering the nature of accusations and the fact that the applicant is old- aged pensioner, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, and on further condition that he shall not enter village Khadak-Omerga until the completion of the trial. He shall submit an undertaking to such effect while furnishing the bail bonds before the Court of Sessions. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4424-10 ( 5 )