At the bail stage, the court focuses on the existence of a prima facie case and the circumstances justifying detention, not the detailed evidence, allowing bail in cases lacking intention to harm.

Judgment :

R.N. Laddha, J.

1. By this application the applicant seeks bail in connection with CR No.146 of 2024, registered at Malegao City Police Station, Nashik, for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), Sections 3 (25), 5(27), 7(27)(3) and 7(25)(1- AA ) of the Arms Act, and Sections 37 (1), 37(3) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2. The informant states that on 09 May 2024, between 9:00 and 9:30 PM, the applicant was arguing with Firoz Ganjawala outside the informant’s house. Since rituals were underway due to the recent death of the informant’s father, the informant asked them not to quarrel. At that time, the applicant fired a country made pistol at Firoz Ganjawala, but the bullet mistakenly struck the informant, causing serious injury. The informant was first taken to Civil Hospital, Malegaon, then to Shifa Hospital until 12 May 2024, and later shifted to Sunflower Hospital, Nashik, where he succumbed to his injuries on 14 May 2024.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the genesis of the present alleged incident, according to the prosecution, lies in a business related dispute between the applicant and one Frioz Ahmad. As per the prosecution’s own version, the firearm discharge was aimed at Firoz, and the informant sustained the gunshot injury only accidentally, resulting in his unfortunate death. Thus, it is contended that even as per the prosecution’s own case there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause the death of the informant.

4. The learned Counsel further submits that the prosecution alleges that accused No.3, Imran Khan, sold the pistol to accused No.2, who in turn sold it to the present applicant (accused No.1). However, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to place on record any substantive material to corroborate this allegation. No meaningful investigation has been conducted in this regard, and the record is devoid of any material indicating such a chain of possession. It is further submitted that, as per the prosecution, the weapon was subsequently taken away from the applicant by one Sheikh Shabbir, who is stated to be a cousin of the deceased. Yet, there is no seizure panchnama to support this assertion.

5. The learned Counsel also points out that, in his statement, Sheikh Shabbir does not claim to have handed over the said pistol to the police thereafter. The absence of such material, according to the learned Counsel, raises serious doubts about the prosecution’s narrative pertaining to the recovery and handing of the alleged weapon. The learned Counsel also submits that, even assuming the prosecution’s case to be true on its face value, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are not satisfied, as there is no allegation of intention or knowledge to cause the death of the informant.

6. It is submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 10 June 2024 and, despite the lapse of considerable time, the charges have yet to be framed. The prosecution proposes to examine 39 witnesses, and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to be protracted. It is further pointed out that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court. The applicant is willing to comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court, including remaining outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station until the completion of the trial.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP resisted the applicant’s prayer, contending that the offence is of a grave and serious natur