1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 672/2011 Mohd. Ayub Sheikh s/o Mohd Yusuf Sheikh ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO P.S. Kuhi, Tq. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2011. 1. The applicant is an accused in Crime No. 95/2011 registered with Police Station, Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident occurred on 13.05.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. Some 4-5 persons including the deceased had gone to Beer Bar, which is on Umrer road and after coming out they were gossiping that they were charged more by the Bar owner. The co- accused, who heard the gossips, explained that no extra amount was charged. One Rupesh, owner of the Pan shop intervened in the matter. At that time, the present accused appeared there armed with knife and gave its blow on the abdomen of the deceased. The first blow landed on the hand of Banti Mhaiskar 2 and, thereafter, the second blow was given on the person of the deceased. When the deceased was carried to Government Medial College and Hospital, Nagpur, he was declared dead. The Postmortem report reveals that there was injury on the anterior part of the chest on left side. Due to assault, both the lungs got punctured and also caused damage to the heart which was the cause of death. 3. The first informant is none other than the eye witness Ankush Lakhote, who had witnessed the incident. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the offence does not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His next contention is that the co-accused has been released and the deceased and his associates are also having criminal antecedents. 5. The act of the accused in giving forcible blow of knife on the chest of the deceased prima facie attracts clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, he was not involved in the actual quarrel. After seeing that the quarrel was going on between the co-accused Appu and other, he appeared there and at that time he was armed with knife. The first blow of knife was landed on the hand of Banti and then he made second attempt and the blow landed on the chest of the deceased. 3 6. Considering the seriousness of the offence, it would not be desirable to release the accused on bail. The other co-accused has been released on bail perhaps may be because of his role of assaulting the deceased with wooden plank, which has not caused any serious injury on the person of deceased. In that light of the matter, the application is rejected. JUDGE kahale