-1- BA.2341.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2341 OF 2024 Raju Anna Kakade, Age : 25 years, Occu. : Agril., R/o. Walki, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent. …… Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for Respondent – State. ...… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 21 APRIL 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 22 APRIL 2025 ORDER : 1. This is a regular bail application on account of arrest of applicant in Crime No.358 of 2024 registered at Nagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for offence punishable under sections 302, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted that, alleged occurrence is of 04.04.2024, but report is lodged on 05.04.2024. That, there is no prompt lodgment of report. That, applicant is arrested on 05.04.2024. That, occurrence was sudden and as such there was no premeditation. That, informant, who is son of deceased, is not 2025:BHC-AUG:11490 -2- BA.2341.2024 an eye witness and he allegedly received informant from his mother on telephone. That, it is further pointed out that, when informant claims to have reached at the spot, he had himself reported that, his father was standing and he made general allegations being beaten by means of stick and rod. However, according to learned counsel, in the very FIR itself it is reported that, when deceased was taken to hospital, doctor undertook the steps of giving CPR and doctor allegedly opined about possibility of heart attack. Cause of death is attributed due to Traumatic Asphyxia due to counter coup injury to the lungs, probably due to fracture. That, there were no external injuries. That, now investigation is over and nothing further is to be recovered or discovered. That, charge sheet is filed in June 2024. That, applicant is behind bars since almost a year. That, as there are no immediate prospects of matter going for trial and as no purpose would be served by further detention, he urges for grant of bail. 3. Learned APP opposed on the ground that there is eye witness account for the occurrence. That, witnesses Ambadas and Omkar gave statements both under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. That, there are allegations of use of stick as well as pipe in which rod is inserted. That, there is recovery of rod at the instance of applicant. Therefore, for commission of serious offence of murder, learned APP opposes grant of bail. -3- BA.2341.2024 4. Heard. Perused the FIR dated 05.04.2024 at the instance of Santosh Dangade. He claims that, on 04.04.2024, he got call from his mother reporting his father being beaten by boys of Tirmalya and so he went there. He saw his father, one Pravin Dandge, Ambadas Bhalsing, Kailas Bhalsing and Omkar Nimse and 20 to 25 persons gathered. His father was standing. But, in few minutes he collapsed and on being asked, it is claimed that his father named Raju and Bajrang for beating him and thereafter he fell unconscious. His father was taken to the hospital. That, doctor attempted to give CPR by pumping the chest and doctor opined possibility of heart attack, and therefore, he referred to Ahmednagar. Informant claims that Ambadas and Kailas informed him that, around 10:45 a.m., his father was questioned Raju for using the way through the field. After abusing, Raju went to his house, but returned with a stick as well as pipe having rod. Thereafter, it is alleged that, Bajrang also came there and it is alleged that present applicant used pipe containing rod and assaulting deceased on the chest, ribs and back. Above witnesses intervened, but it is alleged that both assailants did not bother. Hence, above report. 5. Statements of so called eye witnesses, namely, Ambadas and Omkar are recorded under sections 161 and 164 of -4- BA.2341.2024 Cr.P.C.. Submission made that occurrence was sudden stands falsified from the statements of these two witnesses. They reported that, after initial questioning and abuses, present applicant went home and returned after five minutes getting armed with stick and iron rod inserted in drip irrigation pipe. Present applicant had targeted chest, ribs and back. Column no. 20 of P.M. report shows impact on ribs. There is contusion injury noticed by autopsy surgeon to the lungs due to fracture of ribs. Submissions by learned APP that opinion of doctor, who initially allegedly examined deceased was mere possibility expressed and it was not medical opinion, has forced. 6. Considering the role defined and crystallized through independent witnesses, this court is not inclined to grant relief, even if charge sheet is filed in June 2024. 7. The application stands rejected. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale