MP 1 BA1740_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1740 OF 2011 1. Vijay Vishnu Gurav 2. Vaibhav Vishnu Gurav 3. Laxmi Vishnu Gurav ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Shekhar A. Ingewal a/w. Mr. Anil Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Smt.R.V. Newton, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicants seek to be released on bail in crime No.47 of 2011 registered with Bhudargad Police Station, District Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Panditrao Gurav was the uncle of the present applicant Nos.1 and 2 and brother-in-law of the applicant No.3. There was some dispute about agricultural land between the two families and civil litigation was also going on. As per the F.I.R. lodged by Vaishali wife of the deceased Panditrao, the applicants had entered the house of Panditrao on 16.06.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. At that time, applicant No.2 Vaibhav was armed with iron rod while applicant No.1 Vijay and applicant No.3 Laxmi were armed with hockey sticks. They began to assault Panditrao with the iron rod and hockey sticks. At the same time, the complainant Vaishali and her father-in-law tried to intervene and they were also assaulted. Applicant No.2 Vaibhav had allegedly assaulted on the head of Panditrao with iron rod. After the accused persons went away, the complainant took her MP 2 BA1740_11 husband to the police station and then he was taken to CPR Hospital, Kolhapur. On the next day, Panditrao died. The post-mortem report shows that there was only one abrasion on the right arm but there was no external injury on any other part of the body or on the head. There was no internal injury on the scalp nor skull bone was fractured. However, the brain was congested with hemorrhage. A contusion over the frontal parietal region was found in the brain. Cause of death is shown to be the head injury. Medical reports show that Mahadev, father of the deceased had suffered contusion on the left arm and abrasion on the left knee. Complainant Vaishali had a swelling on the right thigh and abrasion on the left knee. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the land in dispute was being cultivated by one Bebitai Kamble on behalf of the applicants. At about 8.00 a.m., on that day, said Bebitai approached the applicant No.3 and informed that Panditrao had obstructed her from cultivating the land. Due to this, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 went near the house of Panditrao to enquire as to why he had obstructed Bebitai from cultivating the land. According to them, after seeing them, Panditrao got angry and he began to abuse them. Not only that, he took out a stick and assaulted on the head of the applicant No.2 Vaibhav. He also assaulted applicant No.1 Vijay with the stick. When applicant No.3 Laxmi tried to intervene, she was also assaulted with kicks and fist-blows. About that incident, applicant No.2 Vaibhav had lodged report at the Police Station and it was registered as crime No.46 of 2011 under Sections 324, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical certificates reveal that applicant No.1 Vijay had suffered contusion on the left arm and right shoulder and abrasion on the left temporal region below the ear. Applicant No.2 Vaibhav had suffered contusion on the parietal region on the head and right hand. It shows that both the parties were injured in that incident. The injuries suffered by the deceased as well as his wife and father indicate that both the parties must have assaulted each other with sticks or MP 3 BA1740_11 similar weapons. In view of the fact that no external injury was found on the head of the deceased nor any skull bone was fractured, it appears that much force was not used in assaulting. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in which the incident occurred and both the parties were injured, I find that it is a fit case to grant bail to the applicants. 3. Therefore, the applicants be released on their executing P.R. of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in like amount with condition that they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (J. H. BHATIA, J)