..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.451 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2008 Chandu Mohan Lodi. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Nevine Deboo, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant -orig.accused No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-orig.accused No.1 has been convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. The prosecution case is that the present applicant demanded an amount of Rs.100/- from Bindu. At that time the applicant picked up an iron rod near the building site. On seeing this, PW-1 & PW-8 pulled Bindu inside the house and ..(2).. closed the door. Thereafter Bindu peeped through the hole of the door to see whether the applicant had gone or not. At that time the applicant pushed the iron rod through the hole of the door. Due to this the left eye ball of Bindu came out and injury was caused to the left frontal lobe of brain. Bindu died four days after the incident. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it cannot be said that it was the applicant who caused the injury as the applicant was accompanied by two other accused persons. Both PW-1 Mrs.Anarthi & PW-8 Mrs.Koyala have stated that they pulled Bindu inside the house and closed the door. When Bindu peeped through the hole of the door to see whether the accused had gone at that time an iron rod was pushed by the applicant through the said hole which caused injury to the left eye of Bindu. He submitted that PW-1 & PW-8 were inside the house and they had no means to see who was standing on the other side of the door and to see who actually pushed the iron rod through the hole of the door, hence, it cannot be said that it was the applicant who had pushed the iron rod through the hole of the ..(3).. door and caused injury. As far as this submission is concerned, it is pertinent to note that both the eye witnesses have stated that it was the applicant who had demanded money. It was the applicant who had picked up the iron rod. On seeing this, these witnesses pulled Bindu inside the house and immediately thereafter when Bindu peeped through the hole of the door, the iron rod was pushed through the said hole. Looking to the chain of events, one can safely reach to the conclusion that it was the applicant himself, who pushed the iron rod through the hole of the door and caused injury to Bindu which resulted in death of Bindu. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, especially the medical evidence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Application for bail is rejected. . However, in case the Appeal is not heard by 30th September, 2008, liberty to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)