1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3978 OF 2007 Durgaprasad Durgasingh Sitaram Chavan.. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Ms.Teja Katdare for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 20th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant who is charged with an offence punishable u/s.302 of the IPC seeks bail by this application. 3. The deceased was the brother of the applicant. The applicant had previous monetary disputes with the deceased. On 31st may 2007 on 2 account of the quarrel over the said monetary dispute, the applicant is alleged to have killed the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the quarrel and assault took place under intoxification when both the deceased as well as the applicant were intoxicated. There was a scuffle and several injuries were also suffered by the applicant. The applicant had no intention to kill the deceased. Only stick was used for the assault which would show that the applicant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. During the scuffle, the death was caused without intention to cause the death and therefore the applicant would not be liable u/s.302 of the I.P.C but would be punishable with a lesser offence, even if all other allegations are proved. She therefore submitted that applicant is entitled to bail. 5. There are eye witnesses to the crime and the assault. Prima facie, there is sufficient evidence of assault by the applicant. As regards the injury suffered by the applicant, perusal of the hospital discharge card shows that he was discharged in a day and the injuries were minor. As against that, post mortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased 3 suffered as many as 27 injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted by the applicant. Considering the large number of injuries, it cannot be said, at this stage, that there was no intention to cause death. In any event that is the matter for trial. 6. The offence is serious, punishable with death and/or imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence and also prima facie material available against the applicant, in my view, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 7. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the other three co-accused have been granted bail. One of the co-accused is the wife of the applicant who is not alleged to have inflicted any injuries on the deceased. Other two co-accused have also not inflicted any injuries on the deceased. In the circumstances, applicant cannot claim parity with the three other co-accused. In my view, Session Judge has rightly distinguished the applicant’s case from the other co-accused and has refused bail. 8. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J)