Allowed

Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2008APPLN/362/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with offences under sections 307, 148, 147, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The court rejected the prosecution's contention of distinct role without reasoning and noted the victim's survival, ruling that bail is appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

abs

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2008

¶5

 Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand .. Applicant
 V/s

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondent

¶7

 Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant.

¶8

 Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶10

 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2008

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Heard.

¶13

 2. The applicant has been charged (C.R.

¶14

 No.259/2006 of Haveli Police Station, Pune) for the
 offence punishable under sections 307, 148, 147 and 149
 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

 3. The prosecution case in short is that Harshad
 Dhanavade, Pintu, Amit Chorghe and three other persons
 assaulted Yusuf on 30th November 2006 at about 6.00 p.m.
 by using swords and sickle. Though the applicant is

¶16

 - 2 -

¶17

 alleged to be one of the assailants, he is not
 specifically named in the FIR. The assailants intended
 to kill Yusuf who was seriously injured but survived the
 assault.

¶18

 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
 the co-accused Vishal Dhamale was granted bail by this
 Court by an order dated 16th August 2007 on the ground
 that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and no weapon
 was seized from him. He submitted that the case of the
 applicant is similar to Vishal Dhamale inasmuch as the
 applicant has also not been named in the FIR and no
 weapon was recovered from him. He also submitted that
 relying upon the decision of this Court in Vishal
 Dhamale’s matter, another co-accused Sagar Dhanavade,
 who was also not named in the FIR, was granted bail by
 the Sessions Court. He submitted that the case of the
 applicant is similar to those co-accused and therefore
 the applicant be released on bail.

¶19

 5. Learned A.P.P., however, submitted that the
 applicant had earlier filed three bail applications
 before the Sessions Court and all the applications have
 been rejected. He pointed out that the third
 application filed on the ground of parity has also been
 rejected.

¶20

 - 3 -

¶21

 6. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions
 Court in the third bail application in which as regards
 the contention of parity, the learned Sessions Judge
 rejected it in one sentence which reads:

¶22

 "Role played by this accused no.2 is not on par
 with accused nos.3 and 4 who have been released
 earlier on bail."

¶23

 The learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for
 his conclusion that role of the present applicant has
 different than the role played by the accused nos.3 and
 4 who have been released on bail.

¶24

 7. When asked by me, learned A.P.P. was unable to
 point out any difference in the role between the
 applicant and the accused nos.3 and 4 except to say that
 a sickle alleged used by the applicant has been
 recovered from accused no.1. Learned A.P.P. was
 however unable to state how the discovery of the sickle
 allegedly used by the applicant made by the accused no.1
 can be used against the applicant. Assuming that it can
 be so used, the question would be a probative value of
 that evidence.

¶25

 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the
 victim survived and there is no possibility of the

¶26

 - 4 -

¶27

 offence being converted to an offence of higher grade
 punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and also
 taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is
 in custody for more than 14 months (from 5th December
 2006) and also considering the nature of the evidence
 against the applicant, I am inclined to grant bail to
 the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

 The applicant be released on bail in connection with the
 offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond
 of Rs.35,000/- with two sureties of the like amount
 subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

 (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
 make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the
 prosecution witnesses.

¶31

 (b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police
 station once a week on every Monday between 3.00 and
 5.00 p.m. and shall also attend the Sessions Court on
 every date fixed for the trial.

¶32

 (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath Chandrakant Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Dada Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivprakash @ Ramesh Iranna Soddi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manikrao Mahadev Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh @ Rajan Ramniklal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra