1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2010 Maheboob Anis Pinjari ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 27th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.I-288/2009, registered with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, since the applicant was arrested thereunder on 23.10.2009 and is under judicial 2 custody presently. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Satish Ramchandra Sanap on 23.10.2009, alleging that on 22.10.2009 at about 9.30 p.m., the applicant picked up a quarrel with the brother of complainant namely Bharat since Bharat questioned the applicant as why he was moving around in the said lane although he was suffering from Tuberculosis, and thereupon, the applicant got wild and banged head of Bharat on the cot and also on the wall. The witness Pramod @ Nale intervened and tried to relieve victim Bharat, but the victim Bharat became unconscious and thereafter the applicant fled away. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that, the applicant herein seeks resort to Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of right of private defence and in that context, submitted that the statement of eye witness Pramod @ Nale is important, wherein he stated that victim Bharat had held sword by his both the hands and, therefore, the learned counsel submitted that, the applicant is entitled for benefit of exception under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the 3 investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more and, therefore, he be released on bail. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that, during the course of investigation, statemnets of witnesses have been recorded and there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident namely Sandeep Bangar, Rahibai Ponge, in whose house the alleged incident occurred and Pramod @ Nale, who tried to intervene between the applicant and victim Bharat during the occurrence of incident and it is submitted that statements of said witnesses connect the applicant/ accused with the alleged crime. It is also submitted that, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the applicant assaulted victim Bharat with the help of sword, which victim Bharat tried to ward off and, therefore, he sustained sharp edged injuries on his palm also the post mortem notes are in consonance in that respect. Moreover, it is also submitted that, the said sword has been discovered at the instance of the applicant under the memorandum panchanama. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that there are incriminating circumstances against the applicant which connect the applicant in the alleged crime and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 4 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent that, there are eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident namely the complainant himself i.e. Satish Sanap, who is brother of victim Bharat as well as Amol Garje, Sandeep Bangar and Rahibai Ponge, in whose house the aforesaid incident occurred and apparently, the said eye witnesses are consistent in their versions, and therefore, apparently, connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Moreover, during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that, the applicant assaulted victim Bharat by sword and victim Bharat tried to ward off the said sword by holding the said sword in his hands, which has been stated in the statement of Pramod @ Nale and after warding off, he tried to lower down the said sword and thereafter the applicant banged the head of victim Bharat on the wall and, therefore, apparently, there is no substance in the stand taken by the applicant in respect of right of private defence. Besides that, the post mortem notes of victim Bharat are also in consonance with the aforesaid allegations that victim Bharat tried to ward off the said sword since there are sharp edged incised wound on his palm. Moreover, it is also material to note that said sword has been discovered at the instance of applicant and same has been seized under the memorandum panchanama. 5 7. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that, the incident is serious and there are incriminating circumstances and evidence against the applicant herein and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail although the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 8. In the result, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri101810