Dismissed

Subol Jotinder Debnath v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Mar 2021BA/671/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under section 302 IPC, the High Court examined the FIR, postmortem report, and submissions. Finding serious head injuries to the deceased inconsistent with private defence and noting medical evidence showed no grievous injury to the applicant, the court denied bail.

What did the court decide?

Application No. 671 of 2021 is rejected. Bail is denied. The accused shall remain in custody.

Subol Jotinder Debnath Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 36-ba-671-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2021

¶5

Subol Jotinder Debnath

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay for Applicant.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:22th MARCH, 2021

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶13

connection with C.R.No. 414 of 2019 registered at Bhuinj police

¶14

station, on 17/12/2019, under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short ‘IPC’). The applicant was arrested on 25/12/2019

¶15

and since then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the
charge-sheet is already filed.

¶16

2.Heard Shri. Akhilesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Gokhale

¶19

 : 2 : 36-ba-671-21.odt

¶20

3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is

¶21

lodged by police constable Mandar Shinde, attached to Bhuinj
police station. He has stated that, on 17/12/2019, at about
1:30a.m. he was on patrolling duty. He was in the area of Pachvad
Chowky. At that time, the present applicant came running near
them. He told the police that he had a fight with one Ranjan
Mujumdar and that he had assaulted him. Said Ranjan was lying
injured. He told the police to go to that place where he was still
lying. The applicant himself had one bleeding injury on his
forehead. Then the police went to the spot where the incident had
taken place. The police saw that a person in the age group of 55 to
60 years was lying dead. There was head injury to the deceased.
The applicant further informed that there was some fight in
respect of cooking food. The deceased hit him on the head and,
therefore, the applicant removed a pipe and assaulted him and
then as he was scared, he had approached the police and lodged
this F.I.R.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there

¶23

are no eye witnesses. The only evidence is about confession given

¶24

2 of 4

¶25

 : 3 : 36-ba-671-21.odt

¶26

by the applicant himself which is inadmissible. He submitted that
the applicant was very much available when he had pointed the
deceased but the applicant was not immediately arrested.

¶27

5.Learned APP opposed this application. She relied on
the postmortem notes. She contends that the applicant does not
have right of private defence because the nature of injury suffered
by the deceased was quite bad. She submitted that the applicant
himself had gone to the police and had informed about the
incident. The fact that he went to police station to inform about
the incident, is admissible. It is incriminating. She submitted that
there are witnesses who had stated that the applicant had narrated
the incident to them.

¶28

6.I have considered these submissions. The case of the

¶29

applicant is that the incident was a result of fight between the two
and since the deceased caused injury to the applicant, he assaulted
the deceased. I have perused the postmortem notes. The
postmortem notes show that, there were two injuries on the head
of the deceased. The first one was 13cm. X 4cm. over both parietal
region and right side of frontal region, brain matter was oozing out

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

 : 4 : 36-ba-671-21.odt

¶32

through this wound. Second one was 7cm. X 2cm. over occipital
region and cause of death was ‘Head Injury’. The fact that, brain
matter was oozing out shows the force of the blow which was
given by the applicant to the deceased. Therefore, right of private
defence is not available to the present applicant, considering the
nature of injury suffered by the deceased. The statements made by
the applicant while he was in police custody are inadmissible. But
his visit to the police station to inform about the incident is an
admissible piece of evidence. The medical papers of the applicant
do not show that he had suffered any grievous injury.

¶33

7.Considering the evidence against the present applicant
and considering that the nature of injuries suffered by the
deceased are quite serious, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant.

¶34

8. The application is rejected.

¶35

9.The observations made in this order shall be restricted

¶36

to passing of this order in this application only. The trial court shall
not be influenced by any of these observations during trial.

¶37

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶38

4 of 4

Subol Jotinder Debnath v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subol Jotinder Debnath 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

Pravin Madhukar Kharde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilkantheswar Siddheshwar Dhamame Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Narayan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Malhari Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Mahadeo Gejage Vs the State of Maharashtra