Cri. Apln. No. 2506/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2506 OF 2011 Nagnath s/o. Shriniwas Reddy Patil, R/o. Dadgi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. R.N. Dhorde h/f. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 13th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for bail in Cr. No. 110/10 registered in Nilanga Police Station for offence punishable under sections 302, 447 etc. of IPC and for offences punishable under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (2) (5) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The papers of investigation were made available by APP. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by husband of the deceased Narsing Kamble. He has made allegations that on 26.11.2010 present applicant was taking tractor through the land of the complainant, where there was standing crop of Tur. He has contended Cri. Apln. No. 2506/11 2 that when his wife Kantabai, deceased, requested the applicant not to take the tractor through the standing crop as it was causing damage to the crop, the applicant did not listen to her and he drove the truck at deceased Kantabai and she was virtually crushed under the tractor. He has named the witnesses in the report and there are statements of these witness. One Sanjay Jagtap was working as a driver on the tractor of applicant, but when the incident took place the applicant was on driver’s seat as per the statement of Sanjay Jagtap. In this case PM report cannot make much difference because in both incidents of accident and intentional act, injuries will be of similar nature. 3. The advocate for the applicant submitted that on 26.11.2010 immediately after the incident when report was given by Narsing, that it was an accident. This information was supplied to Narsing by his granddaughter and then on 26th itself his report was recorded by police. Police must have registered the crime for offences of rash and negligent driving on that occasion. Only on the basis of report given on 27.11.2010 the crime came to be registered for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. 4. The advocate of the applicant submitted that it was not intentional act, but different colour is given to the incident and all the witnesses belong to the community of the complainant. It can be said Cri. Apln. No. 2506/11 3 that at present this defence cannot be considered. However, fact remains that on the day of incident itself different story was given to police and that needs to be kept in mind. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that relief of bail can be granted to applicant, subject to some condition like preventing the applicant from entering his village Dadgi, Tq. Nilanga. 5. So, the application is allowed. The applicant is to be released on bail on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand). He is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he is not to enter village Dadgi, Tahsil Nilanga till the disposal of the case which is pending against him. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2506.11