(1) CRI.APP. 4395.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4395 OF 2010 Rama @ Shivram S/o Rangrao Ladaji Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pandherwadi, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded (At present in Jail) .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. P.P. More, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. Heard Mr. Salunke h/f. Mr. Kadam, for the applicant and learned APP. 3. The argument of learned Advocate for the applicant is two-fold. First, he submits that since co-accused i.e. father of the applicant is also (2) CRI.APP. 4395.2010 released on the bail, and there is no misuse of the liberty, hence the applicant may be granted similar liberty. Secondly, he would submit that the offence may not come within the ambit of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because there was single blow of knife allegedly dealt by the applicant on the abdomen of the deceased and moreover, it could be a provoked reaction of the applicant because the deceased was giving filthy abuses to his father i.e. the accused no.2. 4. The nature of the crime cannot be determined at the premature stage. The intention of the applicant cannot be gathered at this juncture without scanning the evidence which is likely to be adduced by the prosecution during the trial. The fact remains that the applicant darted out of his house with a knife when fracas was going on between his father and the deceased. In some of the circumstances, even single blow of knife may be enough to infer intention to cause the death whereas in same set of circumstances it may not be so. It appears that the applicant was enraged when he heard (3) CRI.APP. 4395.2010 that the deceased was abusing his father on account of obstruction created on the road by laying down a pipe. The deceased was unarmed and, therefore, the applicant, even if was enraged and wanted to teach a lesson to the deceased could have personally dealt with and man-handled the deceased. 5. Considering the nature of incident and direct evidence available against the applicant, and particularly when it is explicit that immediately the intestine of the deceased protruded out of the abdomen and he met with instantaneous death, the applicant does not deserve discretionary relief of bail. His case cannot be equated with that of the father because his father had not instigated the applicant nor had any role to play at the relevant time. 6. Under the circumstances, the Application is dismissed with direction to expedite the hearing of the Sessions case and to decide the same as far as possible within a period of eight months. The observations in this order shall not be considered while deciding the Sessions case inasmuch as (4) CRI.APP. 4395.2010 ultimately it is possible that the case may not come within the ambit of section 302 and may fall within the ambit of section 304 Part I or Part II of the Indian Penal Code but that will have to be decided on merits. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp