Single judge rejected bail application for a convicted applicant accused of attempted murder and criminal intimidation via arson on his intoxicated wife, citing the severity of the offence and lack of grounds for release after conviction.
Application for bail rejected and disposed of as such.
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
25)APPA443.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2015
IN
CRIMIMNAL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2015
Bhimrao Jagannath Koli
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Mr. Rahul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the State
CORAM:-A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : -16/06/2015
P.C.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on this
application for bail during the pendency of appeal.
u/s 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay
fine of Rs.3,000/-. He was also convicted for the offence u/s 506 of
IPC. Though during the trial, the applicant was on bail, after the
1/3
2
25)APPA443.15
conviction, he has been taken in custody. Apparently there is cognate evidence of the injured victim i.e. the wife of the appellantapplicant on whom on the date of the incident he poured kerosene and caused severe burn injuries to the extent of 12 to 15%, on her chest, abdomen and other parts of the body in the incident occurred on the auspicious occasion of Diwali festival. Allegedly the applicant was in intoxicated condition, as usual he used to drink liquor. On that afternoon he came to the house, pulled quarrel with his wife and gave her threats and also coerced her that he will kill their own daughter aged about one and half years. Thereafter he poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. The neighbour i.e. PW 4 also deposed to the effect that when he heard the noise and shouts by the victim women from the house, he found that the door was latched from inside. He knocked the door. It was opened by the applicant. The applicant was then having some injuries on his head and he ran away after opening the door. The neighbour found the victim woman in burning condition. He removed her to hospital.
4 During the argument it was suggested that it was a
2/3
3
25)APPA443.15
case of accidental catching of fire by the woman. However, this theory is negated by the substantive evidence of the independent witness PW 4, as mentioned above. In any event it is not a case in which the present applicant can be released on bail once convicted and for severe offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and that also commission of offence in intoxicated condition.
5 As such the present application for bail is rejected and accordingly disposed of.
md.saleem
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a convicted applicant facing severe injury charges committed in an intoxicated state.
Whether the theory of accidental fire catching vitiates the substantive evidence of injury caused by the applicant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhimrao Jagannath Koli
The State of Maharashtra
A. R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
