1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPLN) No. 41 of 2011 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Vasanta Ramchandra Junghare and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Doifode APP for the applicant/State. Mr. S.M. Nafde, Advocate for the non-applicants. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. DATE : 17 th NOVEMBER, 2011 Heard both the sides. 2] This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicants (accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 18/2011) by order dated 20/04/2011, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur, in Misc. Cri. Application No. 640/2011. 3] Facts are thus : Mandabai Wd/o. Rajendra Sonone, lodged F.I.R. with Police Station Jalalkheda, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur, alleging that her son-deceased was assaulted by the non-applicants on 27/03/2011. Deceased was referred to Government Medical Hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, on way to the hospital, he died and, therefore, to the offence, 2 which was initially registered under Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Section 302 of I.P.C. was added. The postmortem examination of the deceased reveals about nine injuries. These injuries were in the nature of contusions and abrasions. They were on left side of forehead, left maxillary region, right side of forehead, left arm, right buttock, right thigh, front of left thigh, right knee, back of right thigh and right elbow. On internal examination, linear fractures on right 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were noticed. In abdominal cavity, blood was found collected. There was injury to the small and large intestines. The immediate cause of death was mentioned as “Blunt trauma to abdomen”. The report lodged by the mother of deceased shows that on 27/03/2011 at about 7:00 a.m., she saw the non-applicants beating her son. This report was lodged at about 10:00 p.m. 4] The other side of the case is that the non- applicants have a grocery shop at village Rohna, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur. On 26/03/2011, in the evening the deceased had been to the shop of the applicants and asked for tobacco free of cost. At that time, non-applicant no. 2 was in the shop. Since the deceased did not get tobacco, he was annoyed and went back. While leaving, he threatened the non-applicants. On the next morning i.e. 27/03/2011 at about 11:00 a.m., he again had been to the shop and 3 threatened and abused the non-applicant and their family members. The matter was reported to the police. Police came, however, the deceased was not found. On the same day, at 6:00 p.m. deceased came to the shop and pelted stones at non-applicant no.1. Non-applicant no. 1 sustained injury on his eyebrow and for that he went to the Police Station on 27/03/2011 and lodged F.I.R., which was registered at about 8:00 p.m. The police immediately arrived to village and carried deceased with them. Non-applicant no.1 was also carried by police for medical examination. Thus non-applicants have also some story to narrate and the same is not without any foundation. It seems to have weighed with the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge in releasing the non-applicants on bail. 5] The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge in his order observed that : “However, from the complaint of the applicant No.1 it appears that it was the deceased who initiated the quarrel with the applicants. The place of occurrence is the shop of the present applicants, therefore, in such circumstances, it will not be just and proper to detain the applicants behind bar for indefinite period. It is yet to be concluded whether such injuries caused to the deceased before he was taken to the police station or after he was taken to the police 4 station. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.” 6] In view of the above, interference with the order impugned is not justified. 7] Application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw