MHNS010050562022 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1181/2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 11 NASHIK AT NASHIK.
Sampat Sadashiv Thorat
Age 40, Occ: Business R/o. Thorat Galli, Vilholi, Tal. Dist. Nashik. ..Applicant/accused
V/s.
State of Maharashtra Through Nashik Taluka Police Station (CR No. 87 of 2022) ..Opponent
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1.The applicant/accused has filed this application for grant of bail U/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.87/2022 of Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable U/s.307, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The applicant has filed this bail application and has contended that he is falsely implicated in this offence by his wife. Initially he has filed bail application but it was rejected on the ground that investigation is in progress. However, now investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 27/05/2022. He has not committed the crime as alleged by the informant. Also Section 307 of the IPC is not attracted. Nothing is seized from him and as investigation is completed, 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.4 and 5. It is contended that the offence charged against the applicant/accused is serious in nature. If the applicant is released on bail there is danger to the life of informant and there is every possibility of pressuring and tampering of the witnesses.
So it is prayed to reject the application.
4.Heard Ld. Advocates for applicant. He argued that Section 307 of IPC is not prima facie made out. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has tried to murder the informant by pouring petrol on her person as no such petrol was seized from the spot. It is also argued that there was previous dispute between informant and applicant so he is falsely involved in the crime. There is nothing on record to show that he had motive or knowledge to murder his wife.
There are no eye witnesses of the alleged offence. Whereas it can be seen that he is falsely implicated in this crime by his wife. The applicant is in jail since morethan 6 months. So it is prayed to allow the application.
5.Per contra, the Ld. APP argued that from the report and statements of witnesses on record prima facie it can be seen that as the witnesses who are the parents of applicant had immediately been on the spot, so he could not succeed in committing murder of the informant.
So as there is prima facie sufficient evidence against the accused, it is argued that the application be rejected.
6.Considered the rival submissions. Gone through the record. The applicant has contended that this is subsequent bail application filed by him after filing of the chargesheet. 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 there is change in circumstance. The record shows that previous bail application was filed prior to the filing of chargesheet. However, only filing of chargesheet cannot be said to be a change in circumstances.
Moreover, if the contentions in this application are considered then as per the case of applicant as there was quarrel/dispute between him and his wife who is informant he is falsely implicated in this case. However, prima facie from the report and the statement of witnesses, it can be seen that there is prima facie sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the applicant in this crime.
7.The applicant has contended that petrol was not seized from the spot. But from perusal of the spot panchanama prima facie it can seen that one plastic bottle containing liquid yellowish in colour having smell like petrol was found on the spot and also one match box was also found. These articles alongwith the clothes worn by the informant on which the applicant has poured the liquid which was having smell like petrol is seized and forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer and its report is awaiting. So at this stage it cannot be said that the seized yellowish liquid was not petrol as alleged by the applicant.
8.The report and statement of the witnesses prima facie show that on the relevant day there was some quarrel between the informant and applicant, wherein applicant threatened the informant to kill her by burning and poured petrol on her. There is sufficient material on record to show that the applicant is involved in the crime and prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. The informant being the wife of the applicant, if he is released on bail then the possibility of threatening and pressuring the witnesses cannot be ruled out. So for the aforestated reason I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
The application is rejected.
Digitally signed by RADHIKA RADHIKA MADHUKAR MADHUKAR SHINDE SHINDE Date: 2022.11.04 17:48:20 +0530 (R.M. Shinde) Date : 04/11/2022 Additional Sessions Judge,. Nashik (Court No.11) Nashik.