Dismissed

Anandrao Ramchandra Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Mar 2010APPLN/1397/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the applicant's criminal application for anticipatory bail on merits. Despite a prior brief for dismissal as withdrawn, the Court reconsidered after the applicant argued he was misled. The Court found the applicant, a police case accused of assault with a weapon, involved in a serious crime and rejected his plea of political rivalry.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed on merits.

Anandrao Ramchandra Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1397 OF 2010

¶4

Shri.Anandrao Ramchandra Pawar...Applicant.
Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra.

¶6

..Respondent.

¶7

Mr.U.R.Mankapure for the Applicant.
Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP. for the State.

¶8

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
 DATE : 30th March, 2010

¶9

PC :

¶10

1Matter is moved by praecipe dated

¶11

29.3.2010. This application was disposed off by me
on 26.3.2010 after hearing both the parties. In my

¶12

order, I have noted that I am not inclined to

¶13

grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. At the
stage of passing of the order, the advocate for the
applicant states that his client would like to
withdraw the application and therefore, application

¶14

is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

¶16

2Now, it is contended in the praecipe that
instructions to withdraw the application was
wrongly given by the applicant under some
misconception that inspite of withdrawal, he could
approach the higher court. Taking into account the
averments made in the praecipe, the order dated
26.3.2010 is withdrawn and the application is dealt
with on merits.

¶17

3It is seen that the applicant is shown as
an accused in C.R.No.33/2010 registered by Islampur
Police Station for alleged offences under Sections
143,147,147,323,324 and 506 of the I.P.C. Crime has
been registered on the statement of an eye witness
by name Sachin Falle. In the F.I.R. it is clearly
stated that the present applicant Anandrao Pawar
who is the Shivsena Corporator was present at the
spot with a sword in his hand. It is also
categorically mentioned that Anandrao Pawar used
the said sword to assault the injured Abhijit
Patil. It is mentioned that the sword hit Abhijit

¶18

¶19

Patil in his left elbow. The A.P.P. had shown me
the injury certificate of Abhijit Patil and it
discloses incised wound on the part of the body of
the injured as mentioned in the F.I.R. Apart from
this, there are three other witnesses. All three
named the present applicant as the person armed
with sword. It was sought to be contended that the
present applicant was wrongly involved by his
political rivals. This aspect of the matter cannot
be considered at this stage. In the circumstances,
application for anticipatory bail is dismissed on

¶20

merits.

Anandrao Ramchandra Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandrao Ramchandra Pawar 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

Riyaz Maqbool Nalband and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Dattatraya Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Nivruti Nevase and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suhas @ Haribhau Ashok Talekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdeo Sambhaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Dashrath Sawale Vs the State of Maharashtra