Allowed

Suraj Maruti Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2014BA/1239/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to two applicants charged with murder and attempted murder arising from a sudden communal incident involving assault with sticks. The court found the applicants were not directly involved in the fatal assault on the deceased and found no intent to kill.

What did the court decide?

Relinquished on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness intimidation and court appearance.

Suraj Maruti Patil and Anr. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

8_ba_1239_2014.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1239 OF 2014

¶3

Suraj Maruti Patil & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶4

Ms. Bhakti Deshpande, for Applicants Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the RespondentState.

¶5

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶6

DATED: DECEMBER 02, 2014

¶7

P.C:

¶8

By this application accused Nos.2 and 3 chargesheeted by Karvir Police Station, District – Kolhapur, for themselves alongwith chargesheeted accused No.1 for in furtherance of their common intention having committed murder of one Sagar Patil and attempted to commit the murder of one Rajaram and Sarjerao and thus, having committed the offences under sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C., has prayed for bail.

¶9

The said police station has chargesheeted them accordingly as a result of investigation of crime registered upon first information report lodged by Rajaram regarding the incident, which had occurred on 25.12.2013 in between 10.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. The perusal of the

¶10

Megha 1 of 5

¶11

8_ba_1239_2014.doc

¶12

report reveals that on said date upon deceased Sagar, and injured Rajaram and Sarjerao questioning chargesheeted accused no.1 and the Applicants on the count of diverting the water to the field they were enraged and chargesheeted accused no.1 had assaulted upon the head of the deceased by means of a stick and the Applicants with the sticks had assaulted Rajaram and Sarjerao. As a result of the injuries sustained Sagar had died on 27.12.2013.

¶13

Learned APP objected grant of bail on the count of one of the person having succumbed to the death due to assault made by all the chargesheeted accused in furtherance of their common intention. Learned APP submitted that involvement of Applicants in the incident is clearly borne from the supplementary statement of first informant and the statements of both the injured i.e. Rajaram and Sarjerao and of the other eye witnesses Nagoji Patil, Dhanaji Patil, Sanjay Patil, Sudhir Patil, Pandurang Kudalkar and Maruti Desai.

¶14

Learned counsel for Applicants pressed the prayer for bail by urging that accepting the account of incident as revealed from the first information report and the other material collected during the course of investigation the same reveals that it was a sudden incident, occurred due to Applicants and Maruti being enraged due to being questioned for

¶15

Megha 2 of 5

¶16

8_ba_1239_2014.doc

¶17

diverting the water from their field. It is urged that said account of the incident does not reveal that Applicants or their associates have brought the weapons from any other place but in a heat of anger they had used the sticks which were with them. It is submitted that the said account also reveals that no act was committed by Applicants qua the deceased and as such they cannot be held to be liable for act committed by their companion. It is urged that applicability of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Applicants is prima facie a highly debatable question. It is submitted that since the other victims upon whom Applicants said to have used stick for assaulting them are out of danger and as such ultimately Applicants may not be found to have committed any offence exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, their prayer for bail be favourable considered. It is urged that Suraj is continuing the education while the second Applicant stopped his education after he failed in second year, no useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody as in event of themselves being not found guilty for the offence of murder of deceased Sagar Patil, the important years of their life would be lost. It is urged that both of them are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

¶18

Learned APP submitted that in event the Court being inclined to consider the prayer for bail then suitable condition be imposed to take

¶19

Megha 3 of 5

¶20

8_ba_1239_2014.doc

¶21

care that such an incident does not occur in future as there exists animosity between rival parties and they are having their fields in the same village.

¶22

After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and perusing the chargesheet annexed to it and particularly account of the incident as revealed from the first information report, two injured victims and six eye witnesses, there appears substance in the submission of learned counsel for Applicants that same does not depict Applicants having indulged in any act of assaulting the deceased either with any weapon or otherwise. It also supports the submission canvassed that the incident occurred was a sudden incident and during which members from Applicants' party have tried to ventilate their grievance about the act of the opponent party questioning them for diverting the water to their field.

¶23

Hence, there appears substance in the submission canvassed that it would be highly debatable whether Applicants can be prima facie said to be responsible for the act committed by their companion and the one, which has resulted in causing head injury to the deceased, which has ultimately resulted in his death.

¶24

Megha 4 of 5

¶25

8_ba_1239_2014.doc

¶26

Thus, in facts and circumstances of the case, Applicants

¶27

being the young persons and said to be the students, it appears proper to exercise the discretion in favour of granting of bail by imposing suitable conditions for taking care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned APP.

¶28

Applicants are directed to be released on bail upon each of them furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two lakhs only) with one or two sureties to make up like amount and subject to conditions that after their release Applicants shall (i) not enter the village Sadoli Khalsa, TalukaKarvir, without the permission of the Trial Court; (ii) inform their place of abode to the I.O. and shall attend the local police station for the said area on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday for a period of one month from today and thereafter on every Monday, until further orders; (iii) not indulge in any activity of tampering, threatening, coercing, intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses; (iv) not misuse the order of bail for fleeing away or for committing any further offence.

¶29

The application is accordingly stands disposed of.

¶30

Megha 5 of 5

Suraj Maruti Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Maruti Patil 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

Abhijeet Alias Aba Dnyandev Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmanna Laxman Padwale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siddharth Ajit Ahiwale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Vitthal Mullya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satappa Siddhu Ramanna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Gudulal Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra