SANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.70 of 2020 registered with Soygaon Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 143 , 147 , 149 , 323 , 504 and 506 of IPC. His application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide order dated 31.08.2020 in Bail Application No.1208 of 2020.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is in jail in connection with the present crime since 22.05.2020.The learned counsel submits that there was a pipe line for watering the crop in the agricultural land Gut No.83 owned by the deceased. As per the oral agreement, deceased and the present applicant were jointly using the water of the said pipe line and in terms of that oral agreement, the applicant has paid certain amount to the deceased, however, some amount remained outstanding. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 22.05.2020, at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m., the present applicant along with his son co-accused Amol had been to the house of the deceased and started discussing with him as to how the electrical motor used for fetching the water from pipe line has been burnt. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the deceased was insisting the applicant and his son to bear the expenses of the said damaged electric motor for the reason that the motor has been burnt during their turn of fetching the water from pipe line. Thus, the quarrel had taken place between them. Co-accused Amol has called his brother and after his arrival after a gap of 10 to 15 minutes, again the quarrel had taken place. The learned counsel submits that it has been specifically stated in the complaint that in the said quarrel, the informant caught hold of the present applicant, however, the sons of the applicant co-accused Sagar, Sunil and Amol lifted the deceased and thrown him on the rough surface twice / thrice. In consequence thereof, the deceased Padamsing had sustained the injury on his head. The learned counsel submits that the incident had taken place without any pre- meditation. It has taken place for replacing the damaged electric motor and in the heat of anger, the quarrel had taken place. The learned counsel submits that except the injury below eyebrow and the contusion on the nasel base, the deceased had not sustained any other injury. The learned counsel submits that even the applicant was without any weapon, so also his sons. There is no previous enmity. Even in respect of the incident occurred on same date, time and place, co-accused Sagar has lodged the complaint in the concerned Police Station against the son of the deceased and on the basis of his complaint, the N.C. came to be registered. The learned counsel submits that there is no criminal history. The applicant has a fixed place of residence. The applicant is easily available for trial. The applicant is an agriculturist by occupation. The applicant is ready to abide any conditions, if imposed by this Court including the condition as not to enter in Taluka Soygaon till conclusion of the trial. The applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that besides the informant, there are other eye witnesses to the incident and during investigation their statements came to be recorded. The learned APP submits that those eye witnesses have also ascribed the specific role to the applicant. It has been alleged by those eye witnesses that the applicant has also joined his three sons - co-accused and lifted the deceased and thrown him on the rough surface. The learned APP submits that deceased Padamsing died due to head injury. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicant. There is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The application may be rejected.