1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3570 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3570 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3570 OF 2004 Samson Yunus Khema .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Vikas Shivarkar with Mr.Devidas Botkondale Patil for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2004 DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2004 DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2004 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Konde-Deshmukh,learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The applicant is involved in C.R.No.I-179/2003 registered at Mahatma Phule chowk police station mainly under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The occurrence in the instant case took place on 10.6.2003 at 10 pm in which the applicant and other accused are alleged to have committed murder of Narayan Zope. It is the prosecution case 2 2 2 that there was enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused persons and on that count the accused persons committed murder of the deceased. In so far as the applicant is concerned, he allegedly dealt knife blow on the vital part of the deceased. 4. Mr.Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that even if all the allegations against the applicant are taken at its face value, the offence would not fall under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. According to Mr.Shivarkar, the offence was committed without premeditation and upon sudden fight in the heat of passion and the applicant did not take any undue advantage. In support of his contention he invited my attention to the statement of Vinod Zope, son of the deceased. This witness has given detail account as to how the incident occurred. He has stated that scuffle was going on between the family members of the deceased and the accused persons and in that process the applicant sustained bleeding injury on his head and, therefore, he removed a knife and in the fit of rage inflicted single blow on the deceased. In view of this Mr.Shivarkar submitted that should the applicant had the 3 3 3 intention to kill the deceased, he could have used the knife in the beginning of quarrel and dealt more blows to the deceased. The act of the applicant giving a single blow, according to Mr.Shivarkar, also supports that he did not have intention to kill the deceased and, therefore, offence would not fall under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Though I find merit in the submissions of Mr.Shivarkar I would not like to express any opinion whether or not the offence would fall under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant is 52 years old. All other accused have already been released on bail. He is in custody since last 14 months. Keeping that in view and considernig the submissions of Mr.Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. . The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that he shall report the concerned police station on every Wednesday and Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of six months and thereafter on every Saturday between 6 4 4 4 pm and 7 pm until the conclusion of his trial. . While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The Sessions Court shall decide the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)