Allowed

Narsing Vithal Bajgire v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC24 Aug 2011APPLN/3288/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal bail application was allowed. The applicant sought regular bail for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The court found his participation in the assault not fully proven and ordered his release on bail with conditions to appear before the investigator quarterly and not tamper with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety in the like amount.

Narsing Vithal Bajgire Vs the State of Maharshtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

crap3288.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3288 OF 2011

¶5

Narsing s/o Vitthal Bajgire, age 37 years, occ. agril., r/o Hosur, Taluka Nilanga, Dist. Latur

...Applicant

(Orig.Accused)

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, through In-charge Police Officer, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, Taluka and Dist. Latur

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for applicant

¶12

Shri G.R.Ingloe, A.P.P. for respondent

¶13

CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.

¶14

DATED : 24th August, 2011

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

1 Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as heard respective learned counsel for the parties finally.

¶17

¶18

crap3288.11

¶19

2 The applicant preferred present application seeking regular bail, in connection with C.R. No. 83 of 2011, registered at MIDC police station, Latur, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Smt. Rajabai Salunke on 26.5.2011 in respect of occurrence of the incident on 24.5.2011. It is alleged in the said complaint that 5 days prior to the date of incident, there was quarrel between her nephew, namely Ambadas and one Ashok Pawar and at that time, her husband intervened into the said quarrel. It is also stated in the said complaint that at that time the co-accused Ashok Pawar threatened him. Thereafter, the alleged incident occurred on 24.5.2011. On that day, at about 8.00 p.m., the applicant and two co-accused came in front of the house of the complainant and abused her husband namely Govind and they dragged him to ring road. The complainant also followed them. The assailants took the victim Govind i.e. the husband of the complainant to the ring road of Latur City and assaulted him by

¶21

3crap3288.11

¶22

stick and Batai. Thereupon the complainant shouted, and accordingly, victim’s brother, namely Uttam Salunke, Devrao Pawar and other persons arrived there and intervened and relieved her husband Govind. Thereafter, he was removed to the hospital of Dr. Khan in autorickshaw and was admitted. However, during the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 25.5.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, written complaint was filed by the complainant on 26.5.2011, and accordingly, offence came to be registered under C.R. No. 83 of 2011, under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and co-accused, namely Ashok Pawar and Shrawan Pawar.

¶23

4 At the out set, there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident i.e. the complainant, namely Smt. Rajabai Govind Salunke and her daughter, namely Bayadabai Govind Salunke, aged about 12 years.

¶24

5 On perusal of the statement of daughter of the complainant, namely Bayadabai, it is seen that she has attributed specific role to the co-accused persons, namely

¶25

4crap3288.11

¶26

Ashok Pawar and Shrawan Pawar; whereas it appears that the applicant herein, namely Narsingh Bajgire did not participate in the assault upon victim Govind, but allegedly he only instigated the other two co-accused persons.

¶27

6 On perusal of the statement of Uttam Vitthal Salunke, who stated in his statement that he was not aware whether the applicant herein, namely Narsingh assaulted the victim or not. He also stated in his statement that when he asked the victim Govind about the assault in the hospital, the victim stated to him that Ashok and Shrawan assaulted him, but the victim did not name the applicant herein at that time.

¶28

7 On perusal of the statement of Ambadas Salunke, it appears that there are allegations against the two co-accused persons, namely Ashok and Shrawan and he stated that he came to know that the applicant herein, namely Narsingh was sitting in autorickshaw and further that he is not aware whether the applicant herein, namely Narsingh assaulted his uncle or not, as well as his uncle also did not state whether the applicant Narsingh assaulted him.

¶29

5crap3288.11

¶30

8 Moreover, on perusal of the statement of Anita Pawar, it appears that she stated that she did not see the applicant, namely Narsingh and she is not aware whether the applicant assaulted her brother, namely Govind or not, as well as she also stated that her brother Govind did not state to her that the applicant Narisngh assaulted him.

¶31

9 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, it appears that the participation of the applicant in the assault upon victim Govind is not full proof. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since about more than three months, and hence, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail, but on putting conditions upon him.

¶32

10 In the result, present application is allowed and the applicant, namely Narsingh Vitthal Bajgire be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the following conditions.

¶33

¶34

crap3288.11

¶35

(i) The applicant shall give attendance before the concerned investigator once in a quarter, till commencement of the trial.

¶36

(ii) The applicant shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly.

¶37

11 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits.

¶38

12 The present application stands disposed of finally.

¶39

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.

¶40

dbm/crap3288.11

Narsing Vithal Bajgire v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsing Vithal Bajgire v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Ashruba Solunke and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sheab Been Abbud Chaoos Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Ashok Mohan Kharade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandharinath Atamaram Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Shantaram Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Narayan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharshtra