Bombay High Court
Aakash @ Sandeep Dineshkumar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 07-ia-4071-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4071 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 16468 OF 2022
Aakash @ Sandeep Dineshkumar Pande ..Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Dushyant Purekar a/w. Sharvari Joshi for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12th DECEMBER 2022
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the
Judgment and order dated 19/05/2022 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay in Sessions Case No.714 of 2017.
2. The Applicant was convicted for commission of offences
punishable under sections 307 and 309 of the I.P.C. The major
punishment imposed on him was R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for 2 months for
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.12.13
12:26:14
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 4 07-ia-4071-22
commission of offence U/s.307 of the I.P.C. For the other offene, he
was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 1 months. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Applicant was
given set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c.
3. The prosecution case is that the applicant was neighbour
of the victim. On 27/06/2017, at about 11.00a.m. he entered the
house of the victim holding a knife in his hand and stabbed the
victim. The mother of the applicant, as well as, mother of the
victim rushed there. Other neighbours also came there. In the
meantime, the applicant inflicted blow of knife on himself. One of
the neighbours was successful in removing the knife from his
hand. The victim was taken to hospital. Thereafter the F.I.R. was
lodged. The investigation was conducted. The applicant was
arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there
are contrary versions given by mother of the victim, as well as,
mother of the applicant. None of the neighbours had actually seen
3 of 4 07-ia-4071-22
the incident. The applicant is already in custody for more than 5
years. The applicant did not have any antecedents. The defence of
the applicant was that, because of their breakup, the victim herself
inflicted that wound on her own abdomen.
5. Learned APP opposed this application. He relies on the
discussion of evidence of the victim, as well as, of the Medical
Officer in the Judgment.
6. I have considered these submissions. The victim was
examined as PW-2. She has narrated the incident in detail. The
medical evidence shows that, she had suffered following four
injuries:
i) Laceration below umbilicus measuring 1' x 1' and
depth of 8-11 cm sickle shaped deep wound.
ii) Gross hemoperitoneum and Faeces
contamination.
iii)Lacerated torn Ascending colon.
iv) Bleeding vessels adjacent to perforation site.
7. She was on ventilator for about 2 days. These are very
serious injuries and the offence is also quite serious. I do not find it
safe to grant bail to the applicant in the background of the facts of
4 of 4 07-ia-4071-22
this case. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant. His
release on bail is quite dangerous for the victim. Considering all
these aspects, no case for grant of bail pending final disposal of
appeal is made out.
8. The Application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
