Kailas Namdeo Dalvi Vs State of Maharashtra Nashik Sessions Court BA No 1346 of 2022

…1…

Criminal Bail Application No.1346 of 2022
MHNS010056372022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1346/2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­11
NASHIK AT NASHIK.
Kailas Namdeo Dalvi
Age 44, Occ: Agri./Milk business
R/o. Vinchur Dalvi,
Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.

..Applicant/accused
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Through Sinnar Police Station
(CR No. 129 of 2022)
..Opponent
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1.

The applicant/accused No.1 has filed this application for
grant of bail U/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.129/2022 of Sinnar
Police Station for the offence punishable U/s.307, 324, 323 and 504
r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.

The applicant has filed this bail application and has
contended that he is falsely implicated in this offence. Initially he has
filed bail application but it was rejected on the ground that
investigation is at initial stage etc. However, now investigation is
completed and chargesheet is filed before the Court. The injured is
already discharged from the hospital. The alleged offence has occurred
suddenly without any predetermination and there was no intention of
the applicant to murdered the injured. So prima facie Section 307 is not
…2…

Criminal Bail Application No.1346 of 2022
attracted. Furthermore, from the report it can be seen that this
applicant by putting his life in danger has saved the injured from the
blow of co­accused Somnath due to which he has sustained injuries on
his left hand. So this also shows that applicant had no intention or
knowledge to murder the injured informant. Applicant is in jail since
long so it is prayed that the application be allowed and he be released
on bail.
3.

The APP and I.O. have contested this bail application by
filing pursis and say vide Exh.5 and 6. It is contended that the offence
charged against the applicant/accused is serious in nature. Prima facie
there is sufficient material on record to show involvement and specific
role of the applicant in the offence. The applicant and witnesses are
residing of same village. So if he is released on bail there is possibility
that he might pressurize the witnesses. So it is prayed to reject the
application.
4.

Heard Ld. Advocates for applicant. The initial bail
application was rejected only on ground that investigation was at initial
stage. However, now investigation is completed and charge­sheet is
filed. Also from the report it can be gathered that this applicant has
saved the injured from the blow of co­accused. So considering the role
of this accused and the allegations against him regarding blow of sickle
given by him to the injured informant which are not on his vital part of
body, the applicant be released on bail. Per contra, the Ld. APP argued
that considering the nature of the offence and the fact that this is
subsequent bail application, so the same be rejected.
5.

Considered the rival submissions. Gone through the record.

…3…

Criminal Bail Application No.1346 of 2022
The applicant has contended that this is subsequent bail application
filed by him. So the fact that has come on record is this being a
subsequent bail application the applicant is required to show that there
is change in circumstance, after passing of the order of previous bail
application. In the present case, the entire petition is silent as regards
any such change in circumstance. Moreover, the only ground raised in
this application is that as charge sheet is filed before the Trial Court and
investigation is completed, there is change in circumstance. However,
only filing of charge­sheet cannot be said to be a change in
circumstances. Moreover, if the contentions in the report are considered
then as per the case of informant due to the previous dispute between
the parties alleged incident has occurred. However, prima facie from
the report, it can be seen that there is prima facie sufficient material on
record to show the involvement of the applicant in this crime.
6.

In the report there is specific allegations against this
applicant that he has given blow of sickle on the leg, calf and left hand
of informant. On this point it is argued that these blows are not on the
vital part of the body of the injured informant and also he has saved
other vital blow of the injured. If these contentions are considered then
also as the offences is charged against the accused under Section 307
r.w. 34 etc. of IPC, at this stage it can be concluded and said that this
applicant had no intention or knowledge to murder the informant.
Whereas, this fact will be considered during fullfledge trial. Per contra,
considering the direct allegations against this applicant and the fact that
there is no any change in circumstance after rejection of the earlier bail
application to allow the present application, I proceed to pass following
order.

…4…

Criminal Bail Application No.1346 of 2022
ORDER
The application is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date :­ 23/11/2022
Nashik
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.11.23
17:27:35 +0530
(R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,.
(Court No.11) Nashik.