In a criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court rejected the plea for enlargement. The court observed that the facts suggested a brutal assault resulting in death under Section 302 IPC, making the application sans merit prima facie.
The bail application was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
10.ba1695.14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1695 OF 2014
Ganpat Dharma Rasal. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.
Mr. V.V. Purwant, advocate for Applicant.
Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2014
P.C.:
1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.
2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 5/12/2013 in Crime No. 127 of 2013 registered at Thane Rural Police Station initially for offence punishable under Section 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident is dated 13/11/2013. The injured was taken to the hospital on 15/11/2013 and the injured succumbed to the injury on 24/11/2013. Thereafter,
Talwalkar
1/4
2 10.ba1695.14.sxw
the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 31/10/2014 for offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 It is the case of the prosecution that on 15/11/2013 Gulab Devu Kuvara, an adivasi lady lodged a report at the police station that on 13/11/2013 she was working on agricultural land alongwith her daughter. After returning home at about 8 p.m. when the complainant alongwith her husband and daughter were taking dinner, the applicant alongwith others mounted assault upon her husband. He was brutally assaulted with stick, fists and kick blows. The complainant had attempted to intervene. However, she was also threatened of dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant had enquired with her husband as to why he was assaulted and the husband of the complainant had informed her that to oust them from their agricultural land, the present applicant and others had mounted assault upon him. Soon thereafter, according to the complainant, her husband had become unconscious. Due to economic stringencies and with the hope that he would regain consciousness, she had not reported to the police station. The complainant being a tribal woman
Talwalkar
2/4
3 10.ba1695.14.sxw
had no source to give medical aid to her husband. However, on 15/11/2013, she approached one Jagan Sheth in hamlet and informed him about the incident. The said person gave her Rs. 500/and asked her to give medical aid to her husband. Thereafter she had hired a jeep and taken her husband to Civil Hospital. It was noticed that the husband of the complainant had sustained internal injuries. On 24/11/2013 he succumbed to the injuries.
4 The autopsy notes would indicate that the deceased had sustained multiple abrasions. There was haemotoma on the occipital region and on the peritoneal region. There was intra cranial haemorrhage to the brain. The final cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest due to neurogenic septicaemic shock due to polytrauma, etc.
Talwalkar
3/4
4 10.ba1695.14.sxw
6 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased. They had not assaulted him to the point of death and hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7 However, it is a matter of appreciation of evidence. The complainant and her daughter, who happen to be the eye witnesses have categorically stated that the husband of the complainant was brutally assaulted. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of homicidal death. Hence, the application being sans merit, is rejected.
8 The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and the learned Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial.
9 The application disposed of accordingly.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)
Talwalkar
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused deserves enlargement on bail in a case involving homicidal death due to brutal assault.
Whether the prima facie view of the matter justifies rejecting the bail application without influencing the trial court.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganpat Dharma Rasal
The State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
