Dismissed

Nagesh Sidharam Bagali v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2009APPLN/5436/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appellate Court rejected the bail application of an applicant charged under IPC Sections 302, 323, 504 read with 34. The court held that the applicant shared the common intention of co-accused who killed the deceased after the latter arrived late to the incident.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court not to be influenced by prima facie observations in this order.

Nagesh Sidharam Bagali Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5436 OF 2009

¶5

Nagesh Sidharam Bagali ...Applicant
vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶7

Mr.M.S. Mohite for the Applicant.
Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.

¶8

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶9

 DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2009

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for

¶12

the State.

¶13

2The applicant has been arrested in

¶14

connection with an offence punishable under Sections
302, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC registered
vide C.R.No.135/2009.

¶15

3Prosecution case is that there was some

¶16

¶17

altercation between the applicant and complainant

¶18

Shobha. The entire incident started with the trivial
dispute between the complainant and the applicant
and his family members. On 13th June, 2009, while
the complainant was washing her gallery, some water

¶19

fell on the family members of the accused �
applicant herein who were residing below the
complainant�s house. At that time, accused
Parvatibai picked up a quarrel with the complainant.

¶20

Though the complainant tried to pacify the Bagali�s,
however, she was abused and thereafter, she went to

¶21

the police station to lodge a complaint. Initially,
an offence was registered vide C.R.No.135/2009 under

¶22

Sections 326, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶23

While she was at the police station, her son Vikas

¶24

had gone to the house of his neighbour and asked for
a glass of water and after, he drank water from the

¶25

neighbour, at the time, the present applicant caught
him by scruff of his neck and assaulted him, as a
result of which, Vikas fell down on the ground. At
that time, one Narsing and Omles came there. Narsing

¶26

¶27

was armed with iron pipe and Omles had a wooden bat.

¶28

Narsing assaulted him with an iron pipe and Omles
assaulted him with a bat. After sometime, Vikas
tried to get up at which point of time, again Omless
beated him with wooden bat on his head. He was
thereafter taken to the hospital where he succumbed
to the injuries. The post mortem notes indicates

¶29

that the death was caused on account of head injury.

¶30

4Shri Mohite, learned Counsel for the

¶31

applicant strenuously urged that so far as the
present applicant is concerned, there is no material

¶32

to indicate that he shared the common intention of
Narsing and Omles who had assaulted the deceased

¶33

with iron pipe and wooden bat. It is submitted that
the entire incident happened on the spur of moment
and it cannot be said that the applicant could have,

¶34

therefore, shared the intention of the other
assailants. He invited my attention to the

¶35

statements of the witnesses who had given sequence
and chronology of events and after pointing out the

¶36

¶37

statements of the said witnesses, he had urged that
the applicant had assaulted the deceased with fist
blows and kick blows at an earlier point of time and
thereafter, suddenly, the other co-accused Narsing
and Omles assaulted him. He, therefore, submitted
that from the sequence of events also, it can be
seen that the applicant could not have shared the
intention of the other assailants.

¶38

submitted that the applicant and others had
assaulted Vikas even after his mother had gone to
the police station to lodge the complaint. It is
submitted that therefore, this is not a fit case for
grant of bail.

¶39

6After having given my anxious consideration

¶40

to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the applicant and the learned APP for the State, in
my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail.
After perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it

¶41

¶42

does appear that all the members of the applicant�s

¶43

family had mercilessly assaulted the deceased as a

¶44

result of which the deceased had received about

¶45

seven injuries and grievous injury on his head. In

¶46

the present case, though the complainant had
apologised and had tried to pacify Mrs.Bagali, she
abused her and after the complainant had gone to the
police station, they started assaulting deceased

¶47

Vikas who was young boy of 20 years of age and who

¶48

was not connected with the main incident. This
conduct merely shows that though the deceased was
not at all responsible for the initial incident just

¶49

because he is the son of the applicant Shobha, all
the members of the Bagali family assaulted him. From

¶50

this it can be clearly seen that the applicant also
shared intention of the other members of the family.
Had the applicant not shared the intention, he would

¶51

have promptly stopped the other two assailants from
assaulting the deceased with an iron pipe and wooden

¶52

bat. Further it can be seen that initially, Omles
had assaulted the deceased with wooden bat and

¶53

¶54

Narsing had assaulted him with iron pipe and he fell
down and when he was trying to get up, again Omles
assaulted with him with wooden bat. If the applicant

¶55

had not shared the common intention of the Omles and
Narsing, he would have promptly stopped or at least

¶56

made an attempt to prevent these two persons from
assaulting deceased Vikas who was lying on the
ground in helpless condition. Under these

¶57

circumstances, therefore, the contention of the
learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant
did not share common intention cannot be accepted.

¶58

7Application is rejected.

¶59

8The trial court shall not be influenced by

¶60

the observations made by this Court while deciding
this application for bail since these observations
essentially are of a prima facie nature.

Nagesh Sidharam Bagali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Sidharam Bagali 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

Dr. Niyaz Ahmed Vs the State of Mah

Ajit Kumar Oberoi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

C.S. Mathew Vs C.B.D. Belapur Plice Station and Anr.

Sanjay Laxman Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Arjun Bote and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwambhar Dhondiba Kare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra