NAVNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed by the original accused persons for getting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. N. Shermale for applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. J. Salgare for respondent- State.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that, the informant is the father of applicant No.1 and father-in-law of applicant No.2. There is dispute regarding agricultural land between them. Applicant No.1 is the son begotten to the first wife of the informant whereas the informant was staying with his second wife and daughter begotten from the second wife. Though the incident had allegedly taken place at about 02.00 a.m. on 24-02-2020 yet the First Information Report came to be lodged on 25-02-2020 and there is delay of about 12 hours, this delay has not been explained by the informant. Now after the investigation even charge-sheet has been filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner and he has committed the case to the Court of Sessions i.e. Sessions Case No.191 of 2020. Therefore, the further physical custody of the applicants is not required for the purpose of investigation. In fact, the allegation in the First Information Report are contrary to the medical reports in respect of injury sustained to the informant and the witnesses. Therefore, there is possibility of self infliction of the injuries and false implication of the present applicants. The injuries which are allegedly caused to the informant and the family members are not on the vital part of the body and, therefore, they are not attracting the basic ingredients of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. None of those injuries appears to be dangerous to the life. The informant and his family members were admitted in a private hospital which is run by a trust. A person who is connected to political party is associated with the trust and, therefore, the medical certificates those have been procured appears to be the outcome of the political pressure. The learned advocate appearing for the applicants has taken me through certain statements of the witnesses and also submitted that, these statements appear to be contradictory to each other. Further the recovery of the alleged weapon used in the commission of the crime is required to be tested at the time of final hearing and, therefore, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.