AKASH JAMBU PUNDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 506 of 2020 registered with Pimpari Police Station, District-Pune for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act and Sec. 37(1) a/w sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that the informant is mother of deceased, namely, Shankar Govinda Sutar. On 22/08/2020 at about 00:15 hours when the informant heard commotion from outside the house, she stepped out and found his elder daughter-in-law, namely, Payal standing there. She enquired with Payal about the matter and then went near Hanuman Temple and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and having been assaulted by means of sharp weapon. She became sure that on account of earlier quarrel accused Santosh Chougule, Ajay Kamble, Mohsin Shaikh and Pappu Pawar had assaulted his by means of sharp weapon. She then started crying loudly. Informant 's brother-in-law 's son, namely, Kumar Sangappa Sutar and others gathered and the deceased was taken to D.Y. Patil Hospital, Pimpari. It appears that during the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The informant accordingly lodged the First Information Report (FIR).

(3.) Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the name of the applicant is nowhere revealed in the FIR. The learned Counsel then invited my attention to the statement of prosecution witness, namely, Payal Shivanand Sutar and would submit that her statement is a vague statement which does not in any manner specify the role of the applicant. Moreover, the investigation is over and chage sheet has been filed. The trial may take its own time. There is nobody in the family to look after his family members. Applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail, argued learned Counsel.