Allowed

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 May 2010APPLN/1183/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for anticipatory bail, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the petition of three female applicants. The court directed their release on bail if arrested, specifying surety of Rs. 15,000 each and conditions for appearing before the police and cooperating in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing surety of Rs. 15,000 each and executing PR bond, subject to attending police station as required and cooperating in investigation.

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1183/2010

¶4

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and others

¶5

Applicants.

¶6

Versus.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another.

¶8

Respondents.

¶9

Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. More, APP for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 5TH MAY, 2010.

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard Mr. N.V. Gaware, learned counsel for the applicant, learned

¶13

Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. More for the respondent.

¶14

This is an application preferred by the applicants No.1 to 3 for anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under Crime No.I-71/2010 registered at Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 326, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

At the outset, as regards earlier statement made by learned APP

¶16

¶17

Mr. More, on 23.04.2010 that some of the investigation papers were removed and sought time to confirm said position that whether said removed documents are relevant to the present matter. Learned APP submitted that on 23.04.2010 he had received set of xerox copies and he made inquiry about the removed documents therefrom with Investigating Officer, who stated that said removed documents were not concerned with the present applicants. Today, I.O. PSI Barde is present in the Court. APP Mr. More submitted that he has received original papers of investigation and he confirmed said position.

¶18

It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Manik Bapu on 01.03.2010 in respect of the alleged assault upon him at the hands of applicants and other co-accused persons. However, on perusal of the contents of the said complaint, it appears that allegations made against the applicants herein are general and ominous allegations and no specific role and overt act has attributed to the said applicants during the occurrence of the incident. Said general allegations are that applicants and other co-accused persons assaulted complainant by iron rod, stick, stone and axe. It appears from injury certificate of the complainant that he sustained simple injury as well as other injured Rani Sampat Thite also sustained simple injury and Lanka also sustained simple injury, whereas the injury certificate of Devidas discloses that opinion cannot be given.

¶19

¶20

It is also pertinent to note that present Crime No.I-71/2010 is dated 01.03.2010 whereas a cross complaint was filed by Vikas Thite against complainant herein namely Manik and other co-accused prior to the present matter i.e. Crime No.69/2010 on 01.03.2010. from perusal it is apparent that there are cross complaints against each other by two groups and therefore, consequently possibility of false implication of the applicants in the present offence cannot be ruled out.

¶21

Besides that the applicants No.1. to 3 are ladies and it is submitted that although, applicants were granted interim protection on 1^st April, 2010, they were never called by the concerned police for interrogation purpose and therefore, it appears that there is no necessity of the custodial interrogation of the applicants.

¶22

Under these circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed and interim protection granted to the applicants herein stands confirmed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants No.1 to 3, under Crime No.I-71/2010 registered at Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar, they be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each and on executing P.R Bond in the like amount by each of them on following conditions :

¶23

(I). The applicants No.1 to 3 shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required on written intimation till filing of charge sheet, and

¶24

¶25

shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶26

(II). The applicants No. 1 to 3 shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly/indirectly.

¶27

Needless to say aforesaid order of anticipatory bail to applicant Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force till filing of charge sheet and one week thereafter.

¶28

These observations are primafacie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits.

¶29

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶30

aaa/1183.10

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktabai Annasaheb Thite and Ors. 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

Walmik Bhivsen Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhikaji Motiram Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Vyankatrao Kalse Vs the State of Mah

Panchakshari Gangadhar Swami and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohan Shashikant Belambe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sandesh Yashwant Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.