Allowed

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Mar 2021BA/307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding a charge of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) arising from a spontaneous affray involving alcohol, the court found no premeditation. The applicant, held in custody for over two years, was ordered released on bail upon furnishing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2020

¶5

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Aniket Nikam, Advocate i/b. Vivek N. Arote, for the
Applicant.

¶7

Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:16th MARCH, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶11

connection with C.R.No.100/2019 registered at Bharati

¶12

Vidyapeeth police station, Pune on 22.1.2019 under Sections

¶13

307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant was

¶14

arrested on 23.1.2019 and since then he is in custody.

¶15

2.Heard Shri Aniket Nikam, learned counsel for the

¶16

Applicant and Shri S.H. Yadav, learned APP for the State.

¶17

3.The prosecution case is that the injured in this
case (since deceased), Sandip Aaru was having some dispute

¶18

with the present Applicant regarding parking the rickshaw in

¶19

1 of 6

¶20

Deshmane(PS)

¶21

 : 2 : 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶22

a queue at Swargate Rickshaw Stand. On 21.1.2019, there
was a quarrel and fight between them. The Applicant picked
up a concrete block lying on the road and gave a blow on the
head of Sandip Aaru. He got injured and was taken to
hospital. After that, the FIR was lodged.

¶23

4.The FIR was lodged by Sandip’s wife Madhavi
Aaru on 22.1.2019. She has narrated about the dispute
between the Applicant and her husband Sandip. On
21.1.2019, when the informant had telephonically called
Sandip she could hear that there were arguments and
discussions going on in loud voice. At that time Sandip had
told her that he was with the Applicant and others. He told
that the quarrel was about the old dispute. At 10:30 p.m., the
informant again called Sandip but this time the call was
received by police officers and she was told that the injured
was removed to Bharati Vidyapeeth hospital. She went there
and she saw that Sandip had suffered grievous injury on the
head. The investigation was carried out and the Applicant
was arrested.

¶24

2 of 6

¶25

 : 3 : 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶26

5.Shri Nikam, learned Counsel for the Applicant
submitted that taking the prosecution case, at the highest, it
can be seen that the incident was not preplanned. The
Applicant was not carrying any weapon. The incident
occurred at the spur of moment. The Applicant has given only
one blow and, therefore, there was no intention on his part to
commit murder.

¶27

6.He submitted that in any case, the Applicant is in
custody since 23.1.2019 and, therefore, his further custody
during entire period of trial is unwarranted.

¶28

7.Shri Yadav, learned A.P.P., on instructions of Shri
Kalaskar Sr.P.I. of Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, submitted
that the injury was quite serious and the victim Sandip never
recovered from that injury and he ultimately died in October,
2019. However, on specific instructions Shri Yadav made
statement that the Applicant is charge-sheeted only for
commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC
and the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is not
applied in this case.

¶29

3 of 6

¶30

 : 4 : 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶31

8.I have considered these submissions and with

¶32

their assistance, I have perused the charge-sheet. Besides the
version in the FIR, there are other eye witnesses, who were
knowing the victim as well as the Applicant. They are
Saubham Pawale, Vishal Rajhansa, Rakesh Rasal and Suhas
Walhekar. They have consistently stated that on 21.1.2019 at
about 8:30 p.m., the victim, the Applicant and one Rajendra
Salekar had sat together in a rickshaw consuming liquor.
Suddenly Rajendra Salekar and Sandip started quarreling
with each other and they went to other side of the road. After
some time, even the Applicant joined them. The quarrel
escalated and suddenly they started beating each other. The
victim Sandip @ Aaru Balu beat the present Applicant but he
himself fell down. In the meantime, the Applicant picked up
a concrete block lying nearby and gave a blow to the victim
causing bleeding injury on the head. All of them had
consumed liquor. The police were called and then the injured
was removed to hospital. All these statements are consistent.

¶33

9.Besides these eye witnesses, there are statements

¶34

4 of 6

¶35

 : 5 : 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶36

of Dattatraya Adwade, Sanjay Pawar and Sushantkumar
Jadhav. They have also described the incident in the similar
fashion. However, they were not knowing either the victim or
the assailants.

¶37

10.The injury certificate shows that the injured had
suffered four injuries. One was abrasion over left eye brow
which was a simple injury. The other three injuries were
described as grievous injuries. They were bilateral raccoon
eye, bilateral nasal bleed and left ear bleed. So these injuries
were caused because of the blow given by the Applicant.

¶38

11.As of today, the prosecuting agency has not
applied any higher section than Section 307 of IPC. The
description of the incident shows that it had occurred at spur
of the moment. The victim, the Applicant and their friends
were initially peacefully talking with each other. They were
drinking liquor. Suddenly they started quarreling. The
situation escalated and they started beating each other. In the
meantime, the victim fell down while he was assaulting the
Applicant. Then the Applicant picked up a concrete block and

¶39

5 of 6

¶40

 : 6 : 17.BA-307-20.odt

¶41

gave a blow. This shows that there was no premeditation
and preparation. The Applicant picked up a cement block
lying at the spot and gave blows. Therefore, though
ultimately the injury proved to be endangering life, there was
no premeditation on the part of the present Applicant. The
Applicant is already in custody since more than two years.
Therefore, in this background his further custody is not
necessary for the entire duration of trial. He can be granted
bail. Hence, the following order :

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) In connection with C.R.No.100/2019 registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶44

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station once evry month till framing of the charge.

¶45

Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane

¶46

(iii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.19 11:42:29 +0530

¶48

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶49

Deshmane (PS)

¶50

6 of 6

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukaram Maruti Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alim Salim Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Ekbal Said Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalpana Anil Asabe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tufel Ahamad Mohammad Isaq Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kripansingh Shitalsingh Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra