(1) CRI.APP. 3770.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3770 OF 2010 Dadasaheb S/o Kundlik Kashid, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sakshal Pimpri, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Chaklamba, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed (Copy to be served on P.P. of High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurnagabad) .. Respondent Mr. G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. The applicant is arrested for offence punishable under section 307, 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP. (2) CRI.APP. 3770.2010 4. It prima facie appears that there was dispute regarding the common boundary of the agricultural lands of the informant Baban and the applicant as well his brother. It appears that the incident in question occurred on 9.8.2010 at about 5:30 pm. The FIR purports to show that injured Kachru was assaulted by the applicant by means of an axe. 5. It appears, no doubt, that wife of injured Kachru witnessed the incident. 6. The investigation papers prima facie indicates that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no premeditation to do away with life of injured Kachru. Secondly, the investigation papers do not show that a radiological examination was carried out. What appears from the record is that the injured was admitted in Civil Hospital at Beed and thereafter was treated in private hospital of Dr. Dahiphale. He as subsequently referred to Government Hospital, (3) CRI.APP. 3770.2010 Aurangabad. The medical papers indicate that fracture of superior wall of the left orbit of the skull was suspected. However, presently there is no tangible evidence to infer that there was, in fact, a fracture injury caused to the injured. The intention of the applicant is not clear because he did not give any further blow and there was only a single blow of axe which was dealt with at spur of the moment. That also was result of the reaction caused due to advice of the injured in respect of the dispute over the common boundary. 7. In this view of the matter, the applicant deserves liberty. 8. In the result, Application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) before the Sessions Court at Beed alongwith one solvent surety bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Judge. The applicant shall not contact any of the prosecution witness and shall not enter limits of (4) CRI.APP. 3770.2010 village Sakshal Pimpri until filing of the chargesheet. Application disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp