ANAND FONDU SOLYEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been put up for trial for murder of Kashinath Solyekar, aged 25 years, along with co-accused Pramod Solyekar and Ramesh Solyekar. The other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court on the ground that except for their presence at the place of incident, no specific role has been ascribed to them.

(2.) ADVOCATE Shri Menino Teles argued before me that the deceased was drunk; he abused the applicant and assaulted him as a result of which the applicant sustained three injuries; the applicant had also filed N. C. complaint in respect of incident against the said Kashinath Solyekar and that the statements of witnesses upon which prosecution relies do not disclose as to how the incident in question had started. It was further contended by him that witness Surya Solyekar, who is brother of the deceased Kashinath Solyekar, had been introduced later on by the Police. It is next urged by Advocate Shri Teles that there is no intention to kill and the offence may, at the most, fall under Section 304-Part II and that there are no compelling circumstances to deny bail to the applicant. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Cri LJ 160 : (AIR 1984 SC 372) which was a case under Section 307, I. P. C.

(3.) THE bail was objected by the Government Advocate on the ground that there is sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the applicant is involved in a case of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and that even the mother of the applicant also states that the applicant had taken a wooden dandda from the house and he assaulted Kashinath Solyekar with the wooden dandda.