1 14.apln3093-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3093 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Ram Vishwanath Salunkhe. .. Respondent. .... Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. Mrs.S.A. Dhamale, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for cancellation of regular bail. 2. This is an application preferred by the State challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nashik dated 20.3.2009 by which bail was granted 2 14.apln3093-09 to the present respondent/accused in the matter of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident of stabbing his own father-in-law by the respondent/accused occurred in the afternoon of 12.10.2008 at the house of the deceased. Admittedly the relations between the present respondent and his wife the first informant, daughter of the deceased, were strained and allegedly there were some threats given by the wife to the respondent as to initiating action punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Apparently prior to the date of the incident, there was earlier incident again at the house of the deceased. It occurred on 18.9.2008 when the present respondent had visited the said house under the influence of alcohol and assaulted his wife. On the day of the incident i.e. on 12.10.2008 again under the influence of alcohol the respondent visited the house of his father-in-law and that time compelled his wife, the complainant, to accompany him and as he wanted to live with her after forgetting all the 3 14.apln3093-09 marital discords. When the complainant-wife refused, he became enraged and went out and came armed with a sword-stick (gupti) and stabbed his father-in-law on his abdomen causing severe bleeding injury. After the assault, deceased was taken to hospital and while under the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Present respondent was arrested immediately and during the course of the investigation, there is recovery of weapon a sword-stick and blood stained clothes from him. 4. During the arguments it is brought to the notice of this Court by learned APP for the State that there are statements of the complainant and also one Manorama Pande, the second wife of the deceased. Both these statements were recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. However, the Sessions Court totally ignored the said prima facie material by way of statements and recoveries. During the further arguments, the observations of the Sessions Court in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order are brought to the 4 14.apln3093-09 notice of the Court. On going through the said reasoning, it appears that the learned trial Court was influenced by the sort of argument advanced on behalf of the accused/respondent that it was not the intention of the accused to kill or otherwise he would not have given only single blow. Complete agreement with such type of argument, expressed by the Sessions Judge as mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order per se leads this Court to hold that this is a perverse order in as much as the same is required to be set aside. More so, when the other prima facie evidence as to the statements of witnesses and the recovery at the instance of the accused has totally been ignored. 5. In the result, it must be said that it is a fit case in which the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent is required to be taken in custody and appropriate directions can be given to the concerned Court for issuance of requisite process against him. Hence, the order :- 5 14.apln3093-09 :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.3093 of 2009 is allowed. [ii] The impugned order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, incharge Additional Sessions Judge-1 at Nashik in Cri. Misc. Appl. No.308/2009 is quashed and set aside. Appropriate process shall be issued by the concerned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter for securing arrest of the respondent and take him in custody during pendency of the trial. [iii] Directions are also given to the concerned Sessions Court to dispose of the Sessions Case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine months from receipt of this order. While dealing with the matter on the merits, the trial Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the present order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) ppd