2009 ALL MR (Cri) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M. KANADE, J.
Virendra Shiv Shankar Pandye Vs. State Of Maharashtra
Criminal Application No.1349 of 2008,Criminal Appeal No.1255 of 2008
4th December, 2008
Petitioner Counsel: Ms. POOJA BHOJNE,Mr. NITIN SEJPAL
Respondent Counsel: Mr. D. P. ADSULE
Penal Code (1860), S.307 - Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.439, 389 - Bail - Grant of - Applicant accused convicted for offence under S.307 of I.P.C. - Injured person arrested in connection with theft case - Conflicting versions of accused and prosecution witnesses - Prime facie case made out for grant of bail - Applicant accused granted bail subject to certain conditions. (Paras 4 and 5)
3. Prosecution case is that the applicant fired two rounds from his 12 bore gun and, as a result, two persons were injured in the said firing. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a retired army personnel and he was working as a security guard at Central Warehousing Corporation of India at JNPT, Uran. It is the case of the applicant that two persons injured in the incident were involved in commission of theft and, therefore, in order to protect the property, he has fired two rounds from his 12 bore gun. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant invited my attention to cross-examination of P.W.8 - Tanavkumar Siakiya who has admitted that he was arrested in connection with theft case and that while giving deposition in this case, he was in jail and the case was registered against him at Uran Police Station. He has also admitted that he was removed from the service of Amar Jyoti Security Company. Prosecution case, on the other hand, is that one B. U. Lushkar had informed that he wanted to recover the hand-loan which he had given to the applicant and for that purpose he demanded money from the applicant. However, the applicant instead of returning the hand-loan which was given to him by the said Lushkar fired one round in the air and, thereafter, fired two shots at these two persons.
4. Taking into consideration the said conflicting versions of the accused and the prosecution witnesses, prima facie case is made out for grant of bail. Applicant, admittedly, was working as a security guard at the said area where the incident took place. Two persons were injured at that site. One injured person had been arrested in connection with the theft case. Defence theory is, therefore, plausible. Applicant is retired from the army.