Allowed

Maruti Khandu Ambure v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Nov 2009APPLN/3615/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail in criminal appeal CA No. 3615 of 2009 involving persons accused under the Indian Penal Code for violent offenses, imposing conditions related to jurisdictional restrictions, witness interaction, and reporting to police stations.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to suretyship conditions.

Maruti Khandu Ambure Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3615 OF 2009

¶4

Maruti Khandu Ambure ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Shri A.P. Mundargi Senior Counsel i/b. Shri Vinod Jadhav/ Shri Prabhakar M. Jadhav for Applicant

¶6

Shri Y.M. Nakhwa -APP for State

¶7

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State.

¶10

The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 341, 147, 148, 149 504 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 141 of 2006 registered with Akluj Police Station, Dist. Solapur.

¶11

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that a counter complaint has been filed by Babaji Dhumal, who is also an accused in the present case against the other group. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that accused in the present case were grievously injured in the said incident.

¶12

It appears that there are two groups and there were some quarrels between the two groups on parking of a motor cycle and according to the Applicant herein, the other group attacked the Applicant and the other co-accused first. whereas, the Complainant in the present case alleges that the Applicant and his

¶13

group attacked the Complainant and others first. All the other 11 co-accused in the present case have been released on bail by the Sessions Court . Only the Applicant has not been granted bail. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that the Applicant had assaulted the deceased with a sword and the other accused assaulted him with an iron pipe. At this stage, it is difficult to know who was the main aggressor in the said incident and it is the matter which is to be decided at the hearing of the criminal case. Since all other co-accused have been released on bail and even the Accused in the complaint filed by the present Applicant also have been released on bail and since the charge sheet has already filed and the continued detention of the Applicant for indefinite period is not necessary. The apprehension of the prosecution the Applicant will threaten the prosecution witnesses if he is released on bail, that care can be taken by imposing strict conditions on the Applicant.

¶14

The Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Akluj Town, Dist. Solapur during the pendency of the trial. He shall not threaten any of the prosecution witnesses. He shall give his new address to the Superintendent of Jail before he is released on bail and report to the nearest police station from his new residence once in a month.

¶15

Application is disposed of.

Maruti Khandu Ambure v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Khandu Ambure 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eklakh Ahmed Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ramgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Sham Khatri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kanchan K. Ratahod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Shakir Hasimali Sayyad Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

Dattatray @ Pappu Bhagwan Bandal Vs the State of Maharashtra