1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3999 OF 2009 Sheshrao S/o.Naga Nagdarwad and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with Crime No. 57/2009, registered at Umari Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC as now the investigation in the offence is over and the charge sheet is filed on 05/08/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation placed before me as now the charge sheet is filed after the investigation is over. 2 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it appears that an offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Dnyaneshwar Maroti Nagdarwad on 11/05/2009 in Umari Police Station about the incident occurred in the morning of 09/05/2009 and in the said incident, the father of the complainant was assaulted by these two applicants as well as complainant was also assaulted. The mother of the complainant was also assaulted by other 2 persons i.e. wives of these two applicants. Considering the serious nature of the injuries sustained by father of the complainant, on 10/05/2009 he was shifted to Nanded for further treatment and thereafter this complaint came to be lodged against these applicants and others. It further appears that while undergoing the treatment, father of the complainant expired on 26/05/2009. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged that considering the alleged weapon used by these applicants in commission of said offence, is wooden plank which are easily available at the residential place of any of the agriculturist having agricultural land in villages. It is also tried to urge that considering the episode, it reveals that, there was no intention of these applicants to assault and to commit murder of the deceased. In the premise, the assault is the reason of sudden provocation of the quarrel took place between these applicants and their family members at one side and the complainant and his family members at other side and if there is no intention to commit murder of the deceased, then according to applicants, the case of the applicants is squarely covered 3 under section 304(I) which offence is not punishable under death or life imprisonment and hence the applicant be released on bail. 5. The application is vehemently opposed by learned APP appearing for State on the ground that the death of father of the complainant is the result of assault at the hands of these applicants and if it is so, whether this assault was the result of sudden provocation or intentional, that can be seen at the time of trial and not at this stage. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar and on perusal of post mortem notes which shows that there is multiple linear fracture at 4 places on the skull. After the skull was opened, it shows the severeness of the blow given on the head by these applicants. The probable cause of death shown in the post mortem notes is head injury and multiple fracture to the skull bone. These nature of injuries required to be considered whether the assault was a result of sudden provocation or otherwise. The circumstances to be gathered from the complaint that before the deceased was assaulted by these applicants, in the earlier evening, there was another episode as the applicant no.1 came in drunkard condition at the residence of complainant and hold the cot by the side, where mother of the complainant was sleeping. When the complainant and his family members asked the reason to the first applicant as to this act on the part of first applicant, the applicant abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language. In the morning again the quarrel 4 took place in between first applicant with the family members of the complainant and during that process, he called applicant no.2 and then this episode took place. In the premise, it can not be said at least at this juncture that the assault at the hands of these applicants was not intentional but was a result of sudden provocation, and it can be decided at the time of trial, but still the fact remains that the assault by these applicants resulted in death of deceased i.e. the father of complainant, which offence is punishable with life imprisonment or death. No case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3999-09