Bombay High Court
Shripad @ Nanu Krushnhari ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 2.-i-ia-801-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.801 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL NO.232 OF 2023
Shripad @ Nanu Krushnhari Injamuri .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
-----
Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate Advocate, for the Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending the
applicant's Criminal Appeal No.232/2020. The appellant
was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge,
Solapur vide his judgment and order dated 4.2.2023 in
Sessions Case No.171/2021.
2. The applicant was convicted for the commission
of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and was
sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2023 19:19:26 :::
:2: 2.-i-ia-801-23.odt
one month.
3. Heard Shri Vikrant Phatate, learned counsel for
the applicant and Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP for the
respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the injured PW-1 Anand Manjeli has deposed that the
applicant had caused the injuries with a blade on front side
of his neck. However, the Doctor has deposed that those
injuries were not possible by a sharp weapon. He invited my
attention to the evidence of PW-5 Dr. Supriya Bhoj wherein
she has mentioned three injuries which are described as
contused lacerated wounds of the size 6 x 1 x 0.5 cm, 10 x 1
x 0.5 cm and 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm . The first two injuries were on
the neck and the third injury was on the hand. She has
deposed that those injuries were cut injuries and were
caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel, therefore,
submitted that the ocular evidence is contrary to the
medical evidence and, therefore, the conviction is not
correct.
2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2023 19:19:26 :::
:3: 2.-i-ia-801-23.odt
5. He further submitted that the applicant was on
bail during trial and even after conviction he was granted
bail for a limited period under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. He,
therefore, submitted that the applicant be granted bail
pending disposal of his appeal.
6. Learned APP opposed these submissions. He
submitted that the medical evidence does not appear to be
proper. But, he conceded that the sentence imposed on the
applicant is short.
7. I have considered these submissions. The
doctor's evidence that those three cut injuries were caused
by hard and blunt object is really difficult to understand, but,
this will have to be decided at the final hearing stage . The
points raised by the learned counsel for the applicant will
have to be considered at the final hearing stage of the
appeal. However, the sentence imposed is short and the
appeal is not likely to be decided within that period. The
applicant was on bail during trial and even after his
conviction he was granted bail. There are no allegations of
3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2023 19:19:26 :::
:4: 2.-i-ia-801-23.odt
misusing of that liberty by the applicant.
8. Considering all these aspects, this application is
allowed with the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.232/2023, the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
