RAVI GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. U.V. Nikam, the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE applicant who was employed on the contract basis as a recovery officer seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.16 of 2007 registered at Sarkar Wada Police Station, Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

(3.) P.M. Report reveals that there was no physical external injury on the body of Suresh as well as no internal injury was found. Autopsy surgeon opined that cause of death was Myocordial infraction indicating that he might be suffering from some heart ailments and he died in the bank. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant pointed out that there was no physical act done by any of the accused nor any external or internal injury was caused by any of the accused and therefore, the offence of culpable homicide under section 299 of the I.P.C. is not made out. There appears a substance in his contention that there is a possibility that the deceased Suresh might be having some heart ailment prior to the incident and it was aggravated because of the pressure tactics adopted by the musclemen of the bank. In fact, he had taken home loan of just Rs.1,81,000.00 in the year 2000 and he had paid some installments regularly till 2003. Thereafter, due to some financial difficulty he could not pay installments. Due to this, the bank had filed civil suit as well as proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned senior counsel Mr. Gupta pointed out that on 8th January 2007 he had also executed possession receipt in favour of the bank and thus, recovery of dues of the bank was assured. In such circumstances, there could be no justification for the bank officers to call him with the help of musclemen in the bank and to mentally torture and pressurise him any more. This approach of the bank and its officers itself is certainly deplorable and has to be deprecated. However, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that when no physical injury was caused to the deceased, there is a question on the applicability of Sections 299 and 304 of the I.P.C. itself. It appears that the police want to seize certain documents from the bank. That purpose can be served if the applicant is made available for the interrogation. Custodial interrogation will not be necessary in the matter.