1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2332 OF 2010 Appasaheb @ Nandu S/o.Babanrao Yevale, Age- years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Gondhi, Tq.Georai, Dist.Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Georai, Tq.Georai, Dist. Beed RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 02/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No. 33/2010, registered in Georai Police Station, in which he came to be arrested on 01/03/2010, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Georai on 20/05/2010, and the case is numbered as RCC No.150/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. First, it is necessary to consider the post mortem notes in respect of deceased Pandurang, who was injured with gun-shot in the incident dated 01/03/2010, at about 3.30 p.m. External injuries shown in coloumn no.17 shows that there was entry wound, exit wound around the neck of deceased. Some blackish marks were also noticed at the entry as well as the exit wound at the neck of the deceased. The Medical Officer has opined that, cause of death is the injuries to vital neweo-vascular bundle of neck leading hemorrhagic shock. Thus the fact is very clear that the death of deceased Pandurang is homicidal death. 4. In this background, it is necessary to consider the submissions across the bar as projected by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that whether prima facie applicant to be linked with those injuries, which cause death of Pandurang. Perusal of the complaint as well as statement of eye witnesses, discloses that the alleged incident took place at 3.30 p.m. in the broad day light of 01/03/2010. As per the complaint, while the complainant, brother of deceased Vitthal was proceeding towards his field alongwith his brother Pandurang, the deceased, when they reached near Vitthal Mandir, the applicant and his other 10- associates were found assembled near the temple. There was some previous dispute between the applicant party and complainant party and because of that there was utterance of words at the hands of present applicant,that,”today is the day of Holi, the murder is excused on the day of Holi.”. On hearing this, gun was brought by one Baban which 3 was handed over to the present applicant, who shot with that gun towards Pandurang and in that process, the bullet hit on the neck of deceased Pandurang, who later on succumb to death. Thus the fact is clear that the injuries which was sustained by the deceased was caused due to hit of gun shot by applicant, and their shall not be any mistaken identity. During the investigation, the said gun was recovered at the instance of present applicant. 5. According to learned counsel appearing for applicant, even if the fact is accepted as it is, the act of the complainant can not be termed as the pre-mediated act, as the applicant and others, who were present at the time of alleged incident, were not armed with the deadly weapons, but Baban brought the gun and handed over to applicant. According to him, the incident to be taken as a sudden provocation. This court is not in agreement with these submissions. Because when the gun was handed over to the applicant by somebody else and when there is earlier utterance of words, and if the act of the applicant is taken as innocent, the applicant might have use that gun to threaten him, but he has fired gun shot which cause death of Pandurang. If this act happened in the broad day light and if such applicant is enlarged on bail, then it is like a free license to kill somebody in lawless society, which message can not be given to the society. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2332-10