Eknath Dehu Jale v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It is the prosecution case that on 17.12.2007 at 6 pm the applicant was driving his Tata Sumo vehicle when he deliberately dashed against the deceased - Shivram Patil and after the deceased fell down he ran over the deceased and killed him. The…
Judgment
Mr.A.P.Mundargi for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-173 of 2008 of New Panvel police station, Dist. Raigad. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.
It is the prosecution case that on 17.12.2007 at 6 pm the applicant was driving his Tata Sumo vehicle when he deliberately dashed against the deceased - Shivram Patil and after the deceased fell down he ran over the deceased and killed him. The 2 2 2 incident was witnessed by seven persons, who had gathered at scene of offence for watching the practise of bullock cart race. I have perused the statements of the complainant and Navnath Patil both eye witnesses. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant on the basis of the panchnama and the statement of Navnath Patil tried to demonstrate that it was an accident. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that by no stretch of imagination one can call the alleged incident an accident. Prima facie I find difficult to concede to the submissions advanced by Mr.Mundargi. It is clear from the statements of the eye witnesses that atleast at this stage the alleged incident cannot be termed as an accident. The applicant seems to have deliberately dashed Shivram Patil, and after he fell down, ran over the deceased and killed him. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Hence the application is rejected. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Dec 2008. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.