1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.596/2011 ( Dr. Rajendra Kalidas Kapgate ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.SO. Kalmana, Nagpur ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. Borkar, Adv. for applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 9.11.2011. 1. The applicant, who is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/25 of the Arms Act, seeking his release on bail pending trial. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the accused may be stated thus. In the year 1984 the accused had married Nita and out of this wedlock they have grown up son and daughter. The accused is a Medical Practitioner having his clinic at Sakoli, District Bhandara. Because of matrimonial discord between them, Nita had come to her parents house in September 2010 and since then had been staying there. The incident occurred on 12/2/2011 at Nagpur. There was a marriage ceremony of common relations of the accused and the parental side of Nita. This was 2 attended by the accused, Nita and Prashant Nakade (since deceased). At about 3 to 4 p.m. the deceased and other relations boarded jeep to return to their places of residence. At that time, the accused armed with loaded revolver appeared on the driver side of the said jeep and fired two shots at the deceased. Firearm injuries sustained by the deceased proved fatal. Smt. Asha, the wife of deceased, lodged F.I.R. and on that basis the offence came to be registered. After investigation, chargesheet is filed and is now pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 3. The accused filed Bail Application No.635/2011 which came to be rejected by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 27/4/2011. The accused filed second bail application being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.957/2011 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. On 21/5/2011 it was allowed. The accused was directed to be released on bail after imposing certain conditions. This very order was challenged before this Court under section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code vide Criminal Application No.35/2011 by the complainant. The application was partly allowed and the matter was remitted to learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur vide order dated 12/8/2011. Vide order dated 16/9/2011, passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur, the bail granted to the accused was cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the Court immediately. Therefore, the accused has approached this Court seeking his release on bail, pending trial. 4. Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the applicant, took me through case papers to substantiate his contention that no prima facie case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. His 3 next contention is that the accused while on bail during the period from 23/5/2011 to 16/9/2011 obeyed all the conditions imposed upon him and did not indulge in any illegal or objectionable activity. He invited my attention to the reply filed by learned A.P.P. in which it is stated that the eye witness by name Kalpana Kapgate, who is resident of same town i.e. Sakoli, apprehends danger to her life, if the accused is enlarged on bail. According to learned counsel for the applicant during the period when the accused/applicant was on bail nothing of the sort, as apprehended by the prosecution, did occur nor it would occur in future. He has also invited my attention to the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 21/5/2011 to point out that the applicant is a man of clean antecedents and earns his livelihood by practicing medicine. 5. Of course, there was reason for the accused to get annoyed because of Nita, his wife, deserting him and staying with her parents. Even his apprehension that the deceased Prashant or other relations of Nita on her parental side were providing support to her, may be true. However, the fact remains that there is overwhelming evidence to point out that the accused armed with loaded revolver was present at the place where marriage was solemnized. Without there being any altercation either with the deceased or with Nita he went straight to the jeep in which the deceased was sitting on driver side seat. Then from the close range, he fired at the deceased on vital parts of the body. The postmortem notes reveal that one bullet entered through upper lobe of right lung and lower lobe of left lung. The final opinion is “haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury to vital organs.” In view of this there is no substance in the contention of learned 4 counsel for the applicant that the accused had no intention to commit the offence alleged against him. The accused who is practicing medicine fired two shots from the close range on the vital parts of the body of the deceased; the possible inference would be one which is not necessary to be spelt out in clear words. The other relevant fact is that Nita had left his house in September 2010 and the incident occurred in February 2011. The couple had married in the year 1984. Under this situation there was no reason to get so much disparate and lose control. In that light of the matter and particularly while deciding this bail application it would not be appropriate to dilute the gravity of the offence with which the accused has been charged. 6. The fact that during the period when the accused was on bail, he did not indulge in any illegal or objectionable activity or at any point of time threatened any witness, cannot be the ground to grant him liberty of being on bail, pending a trial. 7. It is well settled law that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court must not be too liberal in granting bail. There is grater justification for denying bail to persons charged with serious offence like murder. The nature and seriousness of the offences, character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations should weigh with the Court while considering the bail application. 8. Considering the nature and the manner in which the offence is committed, I am of the view that the accused does not deserve to be 5 released on bail, pending trial. 9. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.