Allowed

Sandip Ashok Goud v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Mar 2021BA/763/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding a murder charge, the court considered the absence of premeditation, the nature of injuries, and conflicting witness statements. Finding that further custody was unnecessary, the High Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

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

Sandip Ashok Goud Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 : 1 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.763 OF 2021

¶4

Sandip Ashok Goud.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Tejas P. Hilage, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:17th MARCH, 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.439/2019 registered at MIDC

¶9

Bhosari police station, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Applicant was arrested on 12.6.2019 and since

¶10

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

¶11

2.The prosecution case is in respect of death of one

¶12

Muffassir Kazi. The allegations are that the Applicant has
committed his murder.

¶13

1 of 6

¶14

Deshmane(PS)

¶15

 : 2 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶16

3.Heard Shri Tejas Hilage, learned Counsel for the
Applicant and Shri Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

¶17

4.The FIR is lodged by Sachin Bhosale. He was

¶18

friend of the deceased. He has stated that two days before the
incident there was another incident in which the informant,
the deceased Muffassir and their friend had beaten the
present Applicant because he was under influence of liquor
and he had abused them. On 11.6.2019, at about 10:00 p.m.,
they were travelling on their two wheeler. The Applicant
intercepted them and started abusing. He picked up a stone
and pelted it at Mufassir causing bleeding injuries on his head.
He threw another stone at Bhola and the Applicant ran away.
After that, Muffassir was dropped at his house by the
informant. On the next day, the informant was told that
Muffassir was taken to hospital on the next day, but, he was
declared dead. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged.

¶19

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that

¶20

the postmortem notes do not support the case of the first
informant. The postmortem notes show that there are injuries

¶21

2 of 6

¶22

 : 3 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶23

on the back, which is not explained in the narration in the
FIR. He submitted that the eye witness Dinesh had gone for
medical examination after the Applicant was arrested and he
had only suffered blunt trauma over left cheek. He further
submitted that from the narration of the FIR and statement of
the eye witnesses, it is clear that there was no premeditation.
The Applicant had not carried any weapon and there was no
intention to commit murder. Therefore, it can be a much
lesser offence than the offence of murder. He, therefore,
submitted that since the Applicant is in custody from
12.6.2019, his case for bail be considered in his favour.

¶24

6.Learned A.P.P. opposed this application. He
submitted that there is statement of another eye witness
supporting the narration in the FIR. It is without doubt
revealed in the investigation that the Applicant has caused the
injury and, therefore, bail should not be granted.

¶25

7.I have considered all these submissions. With
their assistance, I have perused the charge-sheet. Besides the
FIR, there is statement of another eye witness, namely, Dinesh

¶26

3 of 6

¶27

 : 4 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶28

Mandothiya. He has stated about the incident in the same
manner as is described in the FIR. He himself had suffered
injury over his left cheek because of the stone thrown by the
Applicant.

¶29

8.The postmortem notes show that the deceased had
suffered five injuries. Some injuries were on the back, but,
the vital injury was caused on the forehead which is directly
attributed to the stone thrown by the present Applicant.
Therefore, at this stage, occurrence of the incident cannot be
doubted.

¶30

9.Besides this statement, there are statements of the

¶31

family members of the deceased i.e. father and brother of the
deceased. Both of them have stated that at about 11:00 p.m.
on 11.6.2019 the deceased came home. He had bleeding
injury on his forehead. He had told the family members that
the Applicant had thrown a stone at him and, therefore, he
had suffered a small injury on his forehead. On the next day,
the deceased did not wake up from his sleep. He did not
wake up till afternoon. Therefore, he was removed to

¶32

4 of 6

¶33

 : 5 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶34

hospital, where he was declared dead.

¶35

10.Considering these submissions, the case appears to
be that the Applicant was angry with the deceased and his
friend because he was beaten two days prior to the main
incident. However, he has not carried any weapon and he was
not sure that the deceased and his friend were to pass from
that place. Suddenly when he saw them, he stopped them
and picked up a stone and threw it at the deceased. He also
threw a stone at another eye witness.

¶36

11.From the narration, it is obvious that there was no
preparation or premeditation on the part of the Applicant to
cause murder of the deceased. Only one injury was caused.
The deceased himself did not take that injury seriously. He
went home and told his family members that he had suffered
a small injury but on the next day he became unconscious
and died. Thus, from the circumstances it appears that it
could be a much lesser offence than the one defined as
murder under IPC.

¶37

5 of 6

¶38

 : 6 : 26.BA-763-21.odt

¶39

12.In this view of the matter, since the Applicant is in
custody since 12.6.2019, his further custody during the entire
period of trial is not necessary. He can be granted bail. Hence,
the following order :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i)In connection with C.R.No.439/2019
registered at MIDC Bhosari police station,
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.

¶42

Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.20 14:30:05 +0530

¶43

(ii)The Application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶44

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶45

Deshmane (PS)

¶46

6 of 6

Sandip Ashok Goud v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Ashok Goud 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

Kalpana Anil Asabe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tufel Ahamad Mohammad Isaq Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaykumar @ Jaya Sadashiv Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapaji Dhakal Khanjode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Vishnu Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhav Trimbak Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra