Dismissed

Dattatraya Ramkishan Ghuge and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jan 2014APPLN/65/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail application underSections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. The Court held that applicants cannot escape liability by being part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault, as specific roles were difficult to segregate amidst quick successive blows.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail stands rejected; observations prima facie shall not influence trial Judge on merits.

Dattatraya Ramkishan Ghuge and Another Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

criapln65-14.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.65/2014

¶5

1] Dattatraya s/o Ramkishan Ghuge

¶6

2] Parmeshwar s/o Dattatraya Ghuge

¶7

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Shri N.V.Gavare,Adv.for applicants Smt.V.A.Shinde,APP for State.

¶10

CORAM :M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2014.

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.

¶13

2] The applicants are accused of the offences punishable u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 302 r.w. 149 of IPC. There are in all eight accused. Accused no.7 Narayan Ghuge was in love with daughter of deceased Tukaram. It is alleged that Narayan had left a love letter in a compass box of daughter of Tukaram. Deceased Tukaram detected the same and he questioned the conduct of accused no.7 Narayan. The applicants who include father of applicant no.7 belong to same family. They were furious over the

¶14

2 criapln65-14.odt

¶15

conduct of the deceased. It is alleged that they formed an unlawful assembly and were armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron rod and sticks. It is further alleged that they had assaulted the deceased by means of the said weapons in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. Common object of unlawful assembly was to assault the deceased.

¶16

3] Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants had not used any deadly weapon. Both of them were armed with sticks. It is brought to my notice that further statements of the witnesses clearly indicate that the applicants were armed with sticks. The applicant no.1 had allegedly inflicted a blow on back of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel that he may not press for bail of applicant no.2. It was further submitted that the applicant no.1 had not used any deadly weapon and had not caused any fatal injury to the deceased.

¶17

4] The learned APP Mrs.Shinde has submitted that though the applicants might not have used any deadly weapon, the act committed by other accused was in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly.

¶18

5] The deceased had sustained seven external injuries. Two of them were on head of deceased. There was hemorrhage over the left temporal region and brain matter was found odematus, subarchnoid hemorrhage was seen on left temporal region.

¶19

¶20

criapln65-14.odt

¶21

Weight of brain was about 1150 gms. The medical officer had opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhagic shock due to assault.

¶22

6] I have considered the rival arguments submitted on behalf of the applicants and the respondent. There are ample evidence in the form of eye witnesses version to establish participation of the applicants in the assault. The learned counsel has submitted that the applicant no.1 had not inflicted any deadly blow on any vital part of body of the deceased. Even if it is presumed to be true and correct, the applicants cannot escape the liability of being part of the unlawful assembly having common object of assaulting the deceased. It is noted by the Court that the applicants and other accused had formed an unlawful assembly and they had gone to the house of the deceased. The deceased then ran away from his house and took shelter in the house of Kisan Shinde. Kisan Shinde was not at home. His son Vikas Shinde was present. Vikas Shinde is one of the eye witnesses. He has clearly stated that the applicants and others had assaulted the deceased.

¶23

7] In my considered opinion, the role of the applicants cannot be saggregated from the role of the other accused. It may be noted here that in the cases of unlawful assembly, it is very difficult for the eye witnesses to assign specific role to particular accused. Blows were inflicted in quick succession. It is precisely for this reason that the witnesses normally give general narration of the

¶24

4 criapln65-14.odt

¶25

incident. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the applicants were only part of unlawful assembly, they cannot escape the liability, as they were part of the same assembly which had common object to assault the deceased. In view of these circumstances, no case is made out for bail.

¶26

8] Application stands rejected.

¶27

9] The observations made in this order are prima facie and shall not influence the trial Judge, while deciding the case on merits.

¶28

[M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.]

¶29

umg/

Dattatraya Ramkishan Ghuge and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Ramkishan Ghuge and Another 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

Santosh Bhikaji Landge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwat Munjabhau Hoge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohidas Dagdu Warule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dyneshwar @ Nanya Sahebrao Masule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Fakirchand Fattelashkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gyanba Sakharam Kahrale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra