CNR MHNS010046052020 CR. No. I­336/2020, Satpur Police Station, Nashik registered
under sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1689/2020.

{ Sukat Mohadan Chauhan Vs. State }

The bail application is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘ the Cr.P.C.’) by the applicant­accused Sukat Mohadan Chauhan, arrested on 17.11.2020 in connection with C.R. No. I­336/2020, registered under sections 302, 326, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘the IPC’). They are in M.C.R. since 21/11/2020.

2.The application has been preferred on the grounds that the applicant­accused is falsely implicated in this crime. He is not involved in this crime. There is no motive or intention to commit murder. Offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not attracted against him. There is delay of 2 days in filing FIR. There is no direct witnesses to this incident. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant­accused behind bars. The age of applicant­accused is 58 years. All male family members are in jail. There is no one to look after his wife. Due to COVID pandemic there is threat to his health. He has no criminal antecedents. He is rooted in society. He is ready abide with any condition imposed by this court. Hence, bail may be granted.

3.The learned APP Mr. R.L.Nikam, has filed say at Exh.05. He has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the offence is serious. The investigation is yet incomplete. The statements of witnesses are yet to be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons and the family of victim deceased are residing in one locality. The applicant­accused has proximity with the scene of offence. Hence, he may pressurize the witnesses.

Therefore, bail may not be granted.

4.Heard both the sides. Perused the case papers. Ld. Adv. Mr. R.D. Avhad has submitted alongwith his line of his contentions.

He has additionally submitted that there are no previous disputes between the accused persons and the family of deceased. The incident is unfortunate and accidental. The role of the applicantaccused as per FIR is that he has intervened in the quarrel between the deceased and his neighborer Shrikant Yadav. The size of bats i.e. weapons seized in this offence is so small that those are the bats used for washing clothes. The entire investigation is practically over, ample time has been given to the police to record the statements of the witnesses but the prime witnesses have left the place of abode at Nashik and have proceeded to their village in Bihar. Therefore, now no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant­accused in jail. Hence, bail may be granted.

5.Per contra, Ld. APP Mr. R.L. Nikam has opposed the submissions of Ld. Adv. Mr. R.D. Avhad. He has submitted that on perusal of FIR the active role and participation of the applicantaccused in this crime is evident. The applicant­accused has caught hold the deceased from back side and thereafter the other accused persons have inflicted heavy blows of bats on his head resulting in his death. If the applicant accused had not caught hold the deceased from back side he would have fled from the spot or may have resisted the blows. But only due to the act of applicant­accused he was unable to exercise or put any resistance. Therefore the intention of applicant­accused is seen on record. The weapons used are
enough long of 65 Cm. And 52 Cm. Length to cause sever injuries.

Investigation is yet in complete. Statements are yet to be recorded.

If the applicant­accused is released on bail investigation would be hampered at this stage. Hence, he has submitted to reject the bail application. Investigating officer PSI Mr. T.M. Rathod is present with the case papers.

6.Amidst the above rival contentions, it is to be decided as to whether the applicants­accused have made out a genuine case for their enlargement on bail.

7.Briefly stated, as per FIR dated– 16.11.2020, informant Sau. Sangita Samaldeo Yadav has informed the Satpur Police station that on 14/11/2020 at about 11.00 p.m. the applicant accused and his sons namely Sanjay and Sandip have assaulted her husband Samaldeo. The applicant­accused has caught her husband Samaldeo very tightly from backside and accused persons Sandip and Sanjay have inflicted blows of wooden bats on his head and left eye. Blood started oozing out. He was shifted to hospital. Injured Samaldeo sucumbed to the injuries on 18/11/2020.

8.During investigation memorandum panchanama was done of the accused persons. At their instance, the weapons allegedly used in this offence are seized. The blood stained clothes are also seized.

9.As per post­mortem notes, the opinion as to death is:­
Cranio­Cerebral damage due to blunt trauma to head which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

All injuries are antemortem in nature, around 4­5 days old in duration, caused by blunt trauma.

Sample of blood preserved.

10.As per para 17 of the P.M. notes the following surface wounds and injuries are mentioned on the person of the deceased :1) Blackish contusion of size 8cm x6cm was present over left parietal region of scalp 1 cm. From midline, 5.5. cm. Above mastoid.

2) Left eye­black eye present.

11. On going through the FIR it is seen that the initial dispute was on account of lightening crackers in between Vishal Yadav and Amardip Yadav. Deceased Samaldeo went to the house of Vishaldeo to ask about the quarrel. At that time the applicantaccused and his two sons came at the spot. They were in attempt to pacify both the sides but altercations took place in between Amardip Yadav and the applicant accused. Getting annoyed, the applicant accused caught hold Samaldeo Yadav from the backside very tightly and his both sons brought wooden bats from their house and dealt heavy blows of the wooden bats on the head as well as left eye of Samaldeo Yadav. He sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death.

12.The presence of the applicant­accused on the scene of the offence is mentioned in the FIR. His role and participation in the crime that he has taken part in the quarrel is also specifically mentioned in the FIR. It is attributed on his part that he has caught the deceased Samaldev Yadav very tightly from backside. This act has restrained the further movements of the deceased. Therefore, the role, prima facie of the applicant­accused in this crime is evident. The question of motive or intention to commit murder can not assessed at this stage. It is not warranted in bail proceedings to infer conclusively about the guilt or innocence of the accused persons.

13.The recovery of weapons at the instance of accused persons and blood stained clothes is an aggregative circumstance against the applicant accused. The region of injuries mentioned in the PM notes are corresponding to the area of injuries mentioned in the FIR on which the blows were inflicted. Therefore, prima facie the accusation is well founded.

14.The investigation is yet incomplete. Charge­sheet is yet to be filed. As per the say of I.O. statement of witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded. The punishment for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is death or imprisonment for life. The offence is very serious therefore detail probe and investigation of the offence is necessary to be done. Nonetheless fair opportunity and time is necessary to be given for investigation.

15.The proximity of the applicant accused with the scene of offence is not disputed. It is mentioned in the say of I.O that both the parties are residing in one and the same vicinity. Therefore the possibility that the applicant­accused would pressurize the witnesses cannot be ruled out altogether.

16.Considering the totality of circumstances and stage of investigation, if the applicant­accused is released on bail at this stage, it would badly hamper the investigation in progress. Hence, it is not just and proper to release the applicant accused on bail at this stage. Resultantly the following order.

O R D E R

Application of applicant­accused namely Sukat Mohadan Chauhan for bail is hereby rejected.

Samarendra Digitally signed by Samarendra Prakashrao Prakashrao Naik Naik Nimbalkar Date: 2020.12.15 Nimbalkar 13:27:55 +0530 (S.P. Naik­Nimbalkar ) Additional Sessions Judge, 15.12.2020. Nashik.