Partly allowed

Digambar Ajinath Irche and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC31 Jul 2009APPLN/2667/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Criminal Application 2667 of 2009 addressed anticipatory bail for 25 applicants involved in an FIR alleging assault at Ujani dam. The court rejected the plea for the first four applicants who raised no objection, while granting bail to the remaining twenty-one additional names.

What did the court decide?

Applicants 1-4: Time to surrender granted till 3rd August 2009; no coercive action. Applicants 5-25: Granted bail on Rs. 5000 bond; directed to appear fortnightly.

Digambar Ajinath Irche and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2667 OF 2009

¶4

Digambar Ajinath Irche

¶5

2.Kantilal Syukhall Nagare

¶6

Nitin Ajinath Irche

¶7

Shivaji Baban Irche

¶8

Bharat Arvind Mallavi

¶9

Dyaneshwar @ Mauli Ramchandra Nagare

¶10

Hanumant Dhondiba Nagare

¶11

Chandrakant Baburao Bhoi

¶12

Bharat Dhondiba Nagare

¶13

Anil Baban Nagare

¶14

Vijay Subhash Nagare

¶15

Sharad Arvind Mallav

¶16

Dhondiba Chandan Nagare

¶17

Bapu Haribhau Nagare

¶18

Subhash Chandar Nagare

¶19

16, Bapu Chandar Nagare

¶20

Bajrang Digambar Pardeshi

¶21

Santosh Govind Pardeshi

¶22

19, Rama Kondiba Bhoi (Chamare)

¶23

Hanumant Kondiba Bhoi (Chamare)

¶24

21, Machindra Nana Nagare

¶25

Sitaram Chatur Nagare

¶26

Pravin Vishwanth Nagare

¶27

Popat Dattatraya Nagare

¶28

Uttar Rajaram Dardare ........ Applicants

¶29

versus

¶30

The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent.

¶31

Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale adv. for the Applicants Mr. Rajesh More APP. for the Respondent/State.

¶32

¶33

CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 31st July, 2009.

¶34

P. C.:

¶35

The present application has been filed by as many as 25 applicants seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 92/09 for offence punishable under sections 436, 143, 147, 504, 506, 27 read with swection3 4 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that one Janardan Arun Gawali lodged a complaint on 17-4-2009 alleging that the present applicant nos. 1 to 4 along with other co-accused had assaulted the employees engaged by the complainant for fishing at Ujani dam. The complainant has engaged labourers/fishermen from Andhra Pradesh for the purposes of fishing. Whereas the present applicants were opposed to the engagement of fishermen from Andhra Pradesh and were asserting their exclusive right to fishing at the dam site under Government Resolution. The demonstration took a ugly turn resulting in assault and damaging household articles etc. so also setting huts of some of the fishermen on fire. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the applicants have been vindictively named in the FIR and with a view to further harass the applicants, additional names of about 21 applicants are added in the supplementary statement. It is submitted that the complainant with a view to oust the applicants from the fishing activity in the said dam, has filed this false complaint.

¶36

¶37

Perused the FIR. It is seen that only four of the applicants being at serial nos. 1 to 4 are named in the FIR whereas in the supplementary statement recorded on the same date in the evening names of another 21 persons have added and it is asserted in the complaint that the complainant knows the applicants by name. The submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant is that if the complainant was knowing the names of all those who were involved, how come the names of 21 applicants are absent in the FIR. Be that as it may, the applicants come from very poor strata of the society and their survival is solely depending on fishing activity. They are daily bread earners. No useful purpose would be served by permitting custodial interrogation of as many as 25 applicants. Having realized that names of applicant nos. 1 to 4 find place in the FIR, the learned counsel for the applicant in all fairness makes a statement that the present application to the extent it relates to applicant nos. 1 to 4 is not being pressed. He further submits that the applicant nos. 1 to 4 will surrender by 3rd August and seeks time to surrender till then. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant, I pass the following order.

¶38

The application for applicant nos. 1 to 4 is rejected as not pressed. Time to surrender applicant nos. 1 to 4 is granted till 3rd August 2009. Till then no coercive action be taken against them.

¶39

¶40

In the event of arrest of applicant nos. 5 to 25 in C.R. No. 92/09 under secs. 430, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of IPC, they shall be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. 5. The applicants nos. 5 to 25 shall attend Karmala police station once a fortnight between 5 to 7 p.m. on Saturday for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶41

Parties are directed to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

Digambar Ajinath Irche and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Ajinath Irche and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Vasant Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mansoor Rudha Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Revansidha Ramchandra Jeurgi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Dhondiram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrinivas Narsinglal Khandelwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salim Ajijmulla Miya Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra