Allowed

Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Apr 2006APPA/297/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court appellate bench considered a bail application by two applicants convicted of murder. The court found merit in the defence argument that the case fell under voluntary culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to right of private defence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with two sureties and one-monthly reporting until disposal of appeal.

Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad and Anr. Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 ..(1)..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2006
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.285 OF 2006

¶4

 Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad
 and Anr. ...Applicants.

¶5

Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶7

 . . .
 Mr.Chetan Bane, Advocate for the Applicants.
 Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP, for the State.

¶8

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶9

DATED : APRIL 21, 2006.

¶10

 ORAL ORDER (PER Smt.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶11

 . Heard Mr.Bane learned Advocate for the
 applicants and Mr.Gadkari learned APP for the
 State.

¶12

 2. The applicants have been convicted under
 Section 302 of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge,
 Thane. The applicants are now seeking bail.

¶13

 ..(2)..

¶14

 3. It is the prosecution case that the

¶15

 deceased Harichand had entered into the house of
 the applicants and had rushed out taking a bag
 from the house of the applicants. Hence the
 applicants and some others assaulted Harichand
 with fist blows and kick blows. On account of the
 said blows, Harichand was injured. He was taken
 to hospital. However, he died on the next day on
 account of ‘cardio-respiratory failure, due to
 haemorrhagic shock, due to blood trauma to
 abdomen, chest-wall and skull’.

¶16

 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants has
 submitted that both the applicants were on bail
 during the trial and they have not mis-used the
 liberty granted to them. This statement has not
 been controverted by the prosecution.

¶17

 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has
 further submitted that the case would not fall
 under Section 302 of IPC, but, it would at the
 most fall under Section 304(ii) of IPC. He has

¶18

 ..(3)..

¶19

 submitted that it was the deceased Harichand who
 had entered into the house of the applicants and
 deceased Harichand had rushed out of the house
 with a bag belonging to the applicants. The
 learned Advocate for the applicants has further
 submitted that as the deceased had tried to rob
 the applicants and was rushing-away with the
 stolen property, the applicants exercised their
 right of private defence. Moreover, he has
 submitted that both the applicants have only
 assaulted the deceased by fist blows and kick
 blows and from their act no intention can be
 gathered to cause death nor knowledge that their
 acts would result in death can be gathered. Thus,
 he has submitted that the case at the most falls
 under section 304(ii) of IPC.

¶20

 6. Looking to the evidence on record, we find
 much merit in the submission made by the learned
 Advocate for the applicants. In this view of the
 matter, we are inclined to grant bail.

¶21

 7. Both the applicants be released on bail in

¶22

 ..(4)..

¶23

 the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only)
 each, with one or two sureties to make-up the said
 amount. Both the applicants shall report once in
 a month at Bhainder Police Station, till the
 disposal of their Appeal.

¶24

 8. Application is disposed of.

¶25

 (D.G.DESHPANDE, J.)

¶26

 (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayeed Ahmed Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amjad Wajir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kasam Alisha Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Rankumar Bind Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umashankar Faguram Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Janak Jivanlal Gandhi Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.