The High Court rejected the bail application of an accused charged under Section 307 IPC for firing at a door. Despite arguments suggesting no intent to kill, the court refused bail due to prima facie evidence of threats and fear against the family.
Bail application rejected; no order for grant of bail.
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.
BA145_2015.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2015
Runja Laxman Lokhande ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent And Kantilal Shantilal Chopda … Intervener
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms. Smita R. Gaidhani for the applicant
Mr. D.P. Adsule , APP for the respondent/State.
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate i/b. Mrs. Mallika A. Ingale for the intervener.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2015
P.C.:
Criminal Application No. 132 of 2015 filed for intervention is allowed.
1 / 4
BA145_2015.doc
was not ready. On 21st October, 2014, the applicant/accused went to the house of the complainant and rang the doorbell, however, the complainant saw the applicant through peephole and so she was reluctant to open the door. Thereafter she heard sound of firing from outside the door and found that one bullet pierced through the door and came inside the room. Therefore, she gave the complaint. The applicant was arrested on 21st October, 2014 and since then he is in prison. Hence, this Bail Application.
that the applicant/accused is innocent and even the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, it is not an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant/accused did not fire at the complainant and it was fired 1 ½ feet below the lock. This shows that the applicant did not have an intention to kill or harm any person. He further submitted that there was no conversation between the complainant and applicant/accused, so the applicant did not know who was inside behind the locked door. He further submitted that at the most, it can be an offence under section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., rash or negligently doing such act, which may endanger human life. The punishment for said offence is only six months and/or fine. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the applicant/accused is in prison since October, 2014 and he has no criminal antecedents except some complaints filed by Kantilal Chopda, i.e., son-in-law of the complainant.
2 / 4
BA145_2015.doc
He, therefore, prays for bail.
on the family. One letter discloses that today also, son of the applicant/accused has threatened the family of life and the family is constantly under fear.
3 / 4
BA145_2015.doc
entered the living room but she was saved. This act cannot be considered as rash or negligent act, so section 336 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted. Prima facie it is a case under section 307 Explanation C or section 307 r/w. 511 of the Indian Penal Code, as nobody is injured. Bail could have been granted, however, my attention is drawn to the letters written by son-in-law of the complainant complaining to the police authorities of threats given by the applicant/accused when he was out and thereafter by the son of the applicant/accused that they would eliminate the son-in-law of the complainant and her family members. Under such circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant/accused shall not commit any offence of such nature when he is on bail and if released on bail, shall not pressurize or terrorize the complainant, her son-in-law and family members. Hence, the Application for bail is rejected.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
4 / 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused facing charges under Section 307 IPC for firing a bullet that pierced the door.
Whether the accused poses a threat to the complainant and family members under bail based on prior threats.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Runja Laxman Lokhande
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
