NAVNATH RAMESH KATWARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Marwadi for applicant and Mr.Mirza, A.P.P. for State. Applicant is original accused in C.R.No.105 of 2005 registered at Igatpuri Police station, Nashik. Offences alleged are under section 302 and 504 of I.P.C. It is the case of prosecution that applicant is residing in neighbouring premises of one Manglu Megal (deceased). Deceased was a gangman with Central railway. On the date of incident i.e. 9th September 2005 during day time, the said Manglu and his father in law were sitting and chatting in open space near the quarters. There was some discussion between father in law of Manglu and Manglu at which, it is alleged that, made some general comments and abusive remark about Katware family. Applicant, who was in the vicinity and upon hearing the same, had a heated exchange and altercation with Manglu and thereafter, the applicant picked up a stone and hit the same on Manglu's head. Thereafter, deceased fell down and applicant ran away from the scene. Complainant as well as her father, her step daughter and her nephew have witnessed this incident.

(2.) THE incident took place on 9th September 2005. Applicant was arrested on 10th September 2005. He was remanded to custody till 15th September 2005. Presently, applicant is in judicial custody. It is not disputed that application for bail before charge sheet was filed and thereafter, has been rejected. Sessions Court was of the view that the incident may have occured because of heated exchange and the comments of the deceased about Katwari community but the applicant after picking up stone and hurling it as well as hitting it has caused injuries and deceased died because of the act of applicant and none else. This is a case where section 302 is attracted. Learned Sessions Judge was also influenced to a great extent by the fact that the applicant is residing in neighbourhood of complainant and if released would pressurise the witnesses. It is pointed out that statements of other witnesses are yet to be recorded. In these circumstances, applicant was held not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) UPON this statement being made, I enquired from Mr.Mirza, A.P.P. who after taking instructions from the Constable attached to concerned police station present in court confirms the distance between the villages.