High Court
Legal Reasoning
1BA1149.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD16 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1149 OF 2025RANJEET GULAB BIRAJDARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Girish K. Naik Thigle APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. K. Shirse...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :14.07.2025P.C. : 1]Heard learned counsel for the applicant and thelearned APP for the respondent-State. 2]The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrestedon 10.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.0150/2024,dated 09.04.2024, registered with Killari Police Station,Taluka Killari, District Latur, for the offences punishableunder Sections 302, 307, 336, 323, 504, 506 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3]The learned counsel for the applicant had madesubmissions, which are noted by this court vide order dated11.07.2025 and for the purpose of ready reference therelevant potion of the order is mentioned hereinafter.4a]In the FIR it is stated that applicant – Ranjit 2BA1149.2025Birajdar and other accused have assaulted Dashrath Kaveand Swapnil with fist and kick blows and has committedmurder of Swapnil. It is stated in the FIR that on 8.4.2024at about 4.00 p.m. the above incident occurred on accountof parking of the vehicle. Thereafter another assault wasmade wherein the applicant and the co-accused have caughthold Dashrath and started beating him with kick and fistblows. It is stated that during the incident Swapni tried tointervene in the incident and at that time, main accusedNivrutti Birajdar has assaulted Swapnil on his head and dueto that Swapnil succumbed to head injury. While assaultingDashrath and Swapnil, the accused also threatened thatthey will kill the deceased and others.4b]The learned counsel for the applicant has takenme through the statement of witness namely Vishal Kave,who is said to be eye witness of the assault made on thedeceased. In his statement, Vishal Kave has stated that on8.4.2024 at around 5.00 p.m. first fight was occurred onaccount of parking dispute. He has seen only first part ofthe incident.4c]The learned counsel for the applicant has alsotaken me through the statement of injured witness DashrathKave, wherein he has stated that there was dispute going onwith regard to parking of the car. At that time, presentapplicant and other accused Shubham Gavane and Nivrutti
Legal Reasoning
3BA1149.2025Birajdar abused Dashrath and beat him with their fist. Atthat time when Swapnil came to resolve the dispute,accused pushed Swapnil and the applicant caught Swapniland Nivrutti Birajdar hit the stone on the head of Swapnil. 4d]The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the injured eye witness has narrated the incidentwherein it is only stated that applicant has caught holdhands of Swapnil and other co-accused Nivrutti hasassaulted the deceased Swapnil by means of stone on hishead. The learned counsel submits that original fight wasnot between Swapnil and the accused, but it was betweenaccused and injured eye witness Dashrath. The learnedcounsel for the applicant submits that the deceased wastrying to resolve the dispute and during the incident the co-accused has not assaulted Swapnil and caused his death.The learned counsel submits considering the role of thepresent applicant in the crime, at the highest, even if thecase of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence wouldnot travel beyond section 304 part II of I.P.C. and it cannotbe said that applicant had any intention to kill the deceased.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlierbail applications of the applicant are rejected by the trialCourt and by this Court. The learned counsel also submitsthat the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.2.2025in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.17403/2024 has also dismissed the prayed of the applicant 4BA1149.2025for regular bail, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasgranted liberty to the applicant to file fresh bail applicationafter a period of three months, therefore, the present bailapplication has been filed. The learned counsel for theapplicant submits that there are no antecedents against theapplicant and he is a young boy. Considering all these, thelearned counsel prays to release the applicant on bail.5]The learned APP today contested thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant,on 11.07.2025. He submits that from the statements of theeye witness Dashrath and Tanaji it is crystal clear that in thefirst incident in front of Hotel Shravani all accused assaultedDashrath and Swapnil on account of dispute over carparking. Thereafter, in second incident they pelted stonesand again they assaulted Dashrath and at that time Swapnilintervened. Thereafter, the present applicant and one co-accused caught hold of Swapnil and the co-accused namelyNivrutti assaulted Swapnil over the head by means of stone.The learned APP submits that only first incidentof assault it can be said to be an uncalculated one and,thereafter, the second incident is calculated one as in thatthey had called the injured witness Dashrath to come on theground and there the assault had taken place.He further submits that the applicant and theco-accused caught hold Swapnil and, Nivrutti hit on thehead with the stone and caused such bodily injuries 5BA1149.2025sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Therefore,the learned APP submits that the second incident wouldamount to intention to kill the deceased and the applicantswere having intention to kill the deceased Swapnil.6]The learned APP has relied upon the Judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PulicherlaNagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of AP, (2006) 11 SCC444, more particularly, paragraph no.29, as noted below:“29.Therefore, the court should proceed to decidethe pivota, with care and caution, as that will decidewhether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part Ior 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters -plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel ofchildren, utterance of a rude word or even anobjectionable glance, may lead to altercations andgroup clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motiveslike revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may betotally absent in such cases. There may be nointention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact,there may not even be criminality. At the other end ofthe spectrum, there may be cases of murder wherethe accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murderby attempting to put forth a case that there was nointention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensurethat the cases of murder punishable under Section302, are not converted into offences punishable underSection 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicidenot amounting to murder, are treated as murderpunishable under Section 302. The intention to causedeath can be gathered generally from a combinationof a few or several of the following, among other,circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii)whether the weapon was carried by the accused orwas picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow isaimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount offorce employed in causing injury; (v) whether the actwas in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fightor free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs 6BA1149.2025by chance or whether there was any pre- meditation;(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whetherthe deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there wasany grave and sudden provocation, and if so, thecause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in theheat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting theinjury has taken undue advantage or has acted in acruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accuseddealt a single blow or several blows. The above list ofcircumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and theremay be several other special circumstances withreference to individual cases which may throw lighton the question of intention. Be that as it may.”7]The learned APP further submits that the aboveJudgment Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs. Stateof AP (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down thegeneral parameters that what would constitute the offenceunder Section 304 Part I / II and under Section 302 of IPC. The learned APP submits that when the secondincident had taken place, it was a pre-meditated incidentand that 12 injuries were inflicted on the deceased. In viewof the above and, also, applying the aforesaid parameters inthe above cited Judgment, there are in all 11 circumstancespointed out wherefrom the intetntion to cause death can begathered.8]Considering the rival submissions, in the instantcase, there is sequence of events immediately one after theother. There was a fight on account of parking in that fightthere was an assault. Immediately thereafter second assaulthas taken place. The first and the second incident is one 7BA1149.2025after the another. In the second incident the co-accused hasused the stone lying on the ground and has assaulted thedeceased 12 times on different parts of the body includingthe head. The Postmortem Report, Points No.17 and 19,indicate as under:17.Surface wounds andinjuries- Their natureposition, dimensions(measured) and directionsto be accurately stated-their probable age andcauses to be noted.If bruises be present whatis the condition of thesubcutaneuos tissues ?N.B. (When injuries arenumerious and cannot bementioned within thespace available, theyshould bementioned on aseparate paper whichshould be signed).1. Satured wound present behind left ear oflength 3cm with 3 stitches in situ, marginsirregular and infiltrated with blood. Nodischarge from wound.2. Contusion present over left ear helix of size2.5 X 0.5 cm, dark reddish black.3. Abrasion present over left side of foreheadof size 3 X 0.2 cm, brownish.4. Abrasion present over left side of chin ofsize 2 X 1 cm, brownish.5. Multiple, irregular abrasions present overright lower chest posteriorly or size varyingfrom 0.2 X 0.2 cm to 5 X 1 cm, brownish.6. Multiple, irregular, sub-centimeter sizedabrasions present over right arm lower partlaterally, brownish.7. Abrasion present over right knee anteriorsurface of size 0.5 X 0.3 cm brownish.8. Abrasion present over right great toeanterior surface of size 0.2 X 0.2 cm brownish.9. Abrasion presnet over left foot medicalsurface of size 1 X 0.5 cm, brownish.10. Puncture mark present over right cubitalfossa. (Suggestive of intra-venous access)11. Puncture mark presnt over right forearmmiddle third anterior surface. (suggestive ofintra-venous access)12. Puncture mark present over left handdorsum. (suggestive of intra-venous access)IIIInternal Examination19.Head -i)Injuries under thescalp,their nature.Diffuse hematoma present over right fronto–temporo parietal region and left parieto-temporal region.ii)Skull – Vault and base –Describe fractures, theirsites, dimensions,directions, etc.Linear, irregular, un-displaced, full thicknessfracture of left petrous temporal bone seen oflength 3.5 cm, margins infiltrated with blood.iii)Brain – The appearance ofMeninges – Diffuse Subdural hemorrhage 8BA1149.2025its coverings, size, weightand general condition ofthe organ itself and anyfound in its examination tobe carefully noted (weightM-1300 grams F-1275grams)present over left cerebral hemisphere, diffusesubarachnoid hemorrhage present all overbrain surface, more on left side.Brain – Edematous and congested, multiplecontusions of size varying from 0.1 X 0.1 cm to0.3 X 0.2 cm seen within parenchyma of leftcerebral hemisphere.and opinion as to cause of death is given as“Head Injury.”9]It is stated that the applicant was holding thehands of the victim. The stone was taken from the groundand was hit to the deceased. The co-accused namelyNivrutti is the person, who hit the stone, while the applicanthas hold the hands of the deceased.10]In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ NagarajaReddy Vs. State of AP (supra), the person appellant wascarrying a dangerous weapon. There was previous enmitybetween the appellant and the victim and there was injuryon the vital part of the body with the use of dangerousweapon and that bodily injuries inflicted were sufficient tocause death. Thus, offence of 302 IPC was made out.11]In the instant case, there is no use of dangerousweapon. The incident had started on account of a parkingincident. There were 2 consecutive incidents one afteranother and in the second incident stone lying on theground was used by the co-accused against the deceased.The applicant had held the hands of the deceased. 9BA1149.202512]Considering the above conspectus, it would bedoubtful, whether the offence would fall within Section 302of IPC. The same would be decided at the stage of the trial.The applicant is in jail for the period of about 15 months.The applicant had also been granted liberty by the Hon’bleSupreme Court to revive the bail application after 3 months.As of today, since the applicant has arguable case on merit,the applicant, on stringent conditions can be granted bail.13]In view of the above, the application is allowedin the following terms : a]The applicant shall be released on bail inconnection with Crime No.0150/2024, dated09.04.2024, registered with Killari Police Station,Taluka Killari, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 302, 307, 336, 323, 504,506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, onfurnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or twosureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of thetrial Court. b]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall not contact the informant, in any mannerwhatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. c]The applicant shall co-operate with the trial 10BA1149.2025Court and he shall attend each and every date, unlessexempted by the trial Court.d]The applicant shall not tamper with theevidence of the prosecution and he shall not influencethe informant, witnesses and other persons concernedwith the case. e]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall place on record of the trial Court the details ofhis Contact Number and residential address withupdates in case of any change. 14]Needless to say, in case of violation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicantshall be liable to be cancelled. 15]It is also clarified that the observations made inthis order are limited to the disposal of the present bailapplication. The concerned Court shall proceed further inthe matter without being influenced by the observationsmade hereinabove. 16]The application stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe