SUBHASH PARASNATH PANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1st January, 1995., there was a fight between the rival gangs. The deceased was a friend of the injured eye witnesses Faridulla. The deceased is said to have intervened in the fight and tried to put an end to it. While so doing, he received some injuries. The applicant is said to have injured the deceased with gupti. The post-mortem report revealed that there were 5 external injuries and corresponding internal injury. The cause of death is shown as haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of left internal eliac leading to haemoperitonium. It also appears that the aforesaid incident was witnessed by one Faridulla and Dadu Gaikwad. Gupti has also been recovered at the instance of the applicant under memorandum of discovery panchanama. The applicant was arrested on the spot on 1st January, 1995. Thereafter, the applicant is remanded to jail. An application for bail was moved before the Sessions Court, Thane, which was rejected on 7th October, 1997. The facts narrated above have also been narrated in the order dated 7th October, 1997.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even if the facts as narrated above are accepted to be true, at best, the applicant would be guilty of offence under Section 304 part 2 of the I.P.C. in support of this submission, the counsel relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1995 Cri L.J. 93. In the said Judgment in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 it is observed as follows:

(3.) IN view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Thane, subject to the condition that twice a week for a period of six months from today, he will report to Ambernath Police Station and thereafter once every week during the pendency of the trial. The application is allowed accordingly. Certified copy expedited.