This criminal bail application was rejected by the High Court at Bombay. The court held that despite the applicants' argument of no premeditation, the gravity of the murder charge and prima facie evidence from the post-mortem and charge-sheet precluded bail at this stage.
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.
1/4 27 BA-15-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2020
Mandira Salgaonkar
Digitally signed byMandira Salgaonkar Date: 2020.12.11 20:49:03 +0530
Baban Balu Mengale & Ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …
Mr.Anil Shitole for the Applicants.
Mr.P.H.Gaikwad, APP for the State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2020
P.C:-
1.The applicants are charge-sheeted under Sections 302,
323, 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation
to C.R.No.1018 of 2019 registered with Dehuroad Police
Station on 21st August, 2019.
2.The complainant is one Sham Bajirao Mengale, who had
lodged the report stating that he is residing with his wife Jija,
mother and brother Ramdas, who is the deceased. He state
that on the date of incident i.e. 20th July, 2019, he was working
in the farm alongwith his wife-Jija, mother and the deceased.
Then they came to their place of abode and some quibble
ensued between his brother Ramdas and wife Jija. Jija
telephoned her brother Baban, applicant No.1. He arrived at
their residence accompanied by his cousin brother Ganpat
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/4 27 BA-15-20.doc
(applicant No.2) at around 7.30 p.m.. They came near the hut
and after assessing the reason of the quarrel, verbally abused
the complainant and picked up an iron rod and a wooden stick
lying nearby and started assaulting. They took Jija alongwith
them. The complainant and his brother had suffered injuries
and, therefore, they were lying down. At 10 o’clock, the
complainant realised that Ramdas is not responsive and,
therefore, he was taken to YCM Hospital, Pimpri where he was
declared “brought dead”. On completion of investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed by including statements of various
witnesses. Sonabai i.e. the mother of the complainant was also
injured in the incident. The autopsy was performed on the body
of Ramdas and probable cause was ascertained as injuries on
vital organs.
3.The postmortem report reflect as good as eleven injuries
which are in form of contusions and CLWs. Contusion of size
7cm x 3cm on head is situated at parieto-occipital region of
head, across the midline plane. It is opined to have been
caused by hard and blunt object. Another injury is the
contusion of size 10cm x 3cm located at right parietal region of
head and it is also opined to be caused by hard and blunt
object. Other injuries are also contusions and have been opined
to be caused by hard and blunt object. Injury No.9 is the
contusion of size 40cm x 4cm beginning from the scapular
region, running obliquely downward across the midline plane
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 27 BA-15-20.doc
and ending at lower costal margin. The postmortem report also
refer to the blood oozing from left ear. The age of the injuries is
described to be less than 12 hours. All the injuries on the vital
organs are responsible for the death of Ramdas.
4.The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently
argued that the investigation is over, charge-sheet is filed and
on the basis of this, no intention can be attributed. The learned
counsel would submit that the happening occurred at the spur
of moment and it was not premeditated, which can be
discerned from the fact that the weapons used i.e. iron rod and
wooden stick were lying near the hutment and in absence of
any intention, offence under Section 302 cannot be made out.
Prima facie seen, the applicants are responsible for homicide.
As many as eleven injuries are inflicted by means of wooden
stick and iron rod. The cause of death is the injuries on the
vital organs and as can be seen from the description of injuries
in column No.17 of the postmortem report, the assault is on the
vital organ “Head”. The complainant himself is an eye witness
and has narrated the incident. Whether the intention was there
or not can be determined at the time of trial. Possibly at the
time of trial, the applicants would be entitled to seek
conversion of the offence into Section 304 Part II. However, at
the stage of bail, considering the gravity of the offence and the
availability of the evidence as compiled in the charge-sheet, the
applicants do not deserve their release on bail. The above
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 27 BA-15-20.doc
expression is only prima facie view and may not influence the
Trial Court, as opinion on merit and will not bind the Trial
Court.
Application is rejected.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J
M.M.Salgaonkar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants deserve release on bail given the gravity of the offence of murder and the prima facie evidence compiled.
Whether an offence under Section 302 of IPC can be made out at the bail stage summarily without trial.
Whether lack of premeditation at the time of incident grants bail in murder cases involving fatal blows on vital organs.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mandira Salgaonkar
Baban Balu Mengale
Ganpat
The State of Maharashtra
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court