In a bail application for offences under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 IPC, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea of accidental death. The judge held that witness statements and the FIR showed a deliberate act causing death, finding no merit in the bail application.
Application to enlarge the applicant on bail 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.
BA-1257-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1257 OF 2021
JAYNATH SOAPAN MANSUKH
)...APPLICANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
)...RESPONDENT
Mr.Vilas Tapkir, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt.P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM: V. G. BISHT, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th NOVEMBER 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd NOVEMBER 2021
P.C.:
1The present application has been moved by the
applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
Crime No.527 of 2020 registered with Police Station Junnar,
Pune, for offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
AVK 1/5
Digitally signed byARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.11.23 13:37:25 +0530
BA-1257-2021.doc
2It is the case of prosecution that on 2nd November
2020, at about 4.00 p.m., the informant heard quarreling sound
of his brother. Accordingly, he went to see and saw that the
applicant was giving abuses to his brother namely Prakash. It is
further alleged that, thereafter, the applicant started his tractor
and drove it over the person (on right leg and ribs) of the said
brother of the informant. Even he again came back with his
tractor and again tried to drive it over the person of the brother
of the informant. On 3rd November 2020 the brother of the
informant namely Prakash (since deceased) succumbed to the
injuries. Accordingly, the First Information Report (FIR) came to
be lodged.
3Mr.Vilas Tapkir, learned counsel for the applicant,
submits that there is contrary theory put forth by the prosecution,
having regard to the FIR and the supplementary statement of the
informant recorded on 5th November 2020. The learned counsel
then submitted that it was a case of accidental death and there
AVK 2/5
BA-1257-2021.doc
are no criminal antecedents and in such circumstances, the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4Smt.P.P.Shinde, the learned APP, on the other hand,
opposed the submissions by contending that the applicant
deliberately drove the tractor over the person of the deceased
and caused his death. The learned APP also invited my attention
to the Spot Panchnama wherein the tyre marks were noted on
the spot. There being no merit in the application, the same is
liable to be rejected.
5From the FIR itself it is very much clear that not only
the applicant indulged into quarrel with the deceased, abused
him, but even threatened that he would see him (deceased) and
then materialized his threat by driving his tractor over the person
of the deceased. This incident was witnessed by the informant
himself.
AVK 3/5
BA-1257-2021.doc
6Then there are statements of eye witnesses namely
Nivrutti Dnyandev Mansukh and Vimal Devram Mansukh who
unisonly stated that after abusing the deceased, the applicant
threatened that he would kill him (deceased) and immediately
thereafter he started his tractor and drove it on the right leg and
shoulder of the deceased. From the above, it is more than clear
that the applicant was having mensrea and he materialized his
threat by intentionally driving his tractor over the person of the
deceased knowing fully well the consequences.
7I have also gone through the postmortem report
which clearly shows that cause of death was multiple injuries.
From the above, it is very clear that it was not a case of
accidental death as is canvassed before me by the learned
counsel for the applicant. Rather, it was a deliberate act on the
part of the applicant that ultimately caused death of the
deceased.
AVK 4/5
BA-1257-2021.doc
8For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find merit in the
application. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
(V. G. BISHT, J.)
AVK 5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence involving child death caused by intentional act.
Whether the evidence establishes accidental death or deliberate killing for purposes of bail consideration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaynath Soapan Mansukh
The State of Maharashtra
V. G. Bisht
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court