Partly allowed

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2010APPLN/304/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of applicant no.2 based on prima facie evidence of purchase. For applicant no.1, bail was directed if arrested, amounting to Rs.10,000 per case with a surety, subject to reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for applicant no.2. For applicant no.1, directed that if arrested, he shall be released on bail of Rs.10,000 in each case with one surety in like amount subject to condition

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2010

¶4

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar )

¶5

Abhijit Prafull Chitnis

¶6

)..Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the applicants.

¶10

Mr. S.N. Gawde APP for the State/respondent.

¶11

Date : 18th March, 2010

¶12

¶13

1 The two applicants who have preferred the aforesaid two criminal applications seek anticipatory bail as they apprehend arrest in C.R.No.8 of 2008 and C.R.No.7 of 2008 registered with Wildlife Forest Office, Radha Nagari Range for alleged offences under Sections 26(1)(a), (f) of Indian Forest Act and under Section 29 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under Section 109, 379 of IPC. On perusing the record, I find that in so far as applicant no.1 is concerned there is little material against him. The material does not clearly indicate that he was the actual purchaser of the wood which was stolen from the forest. The police have recorded the statements of certain coaccused. One of the co accused whose statement is recorded is Tanaji Shirke. His statement was recorded on 14.12.2008. Later on 2^nd statement of the same accused has been recorded a year later on

¶14

¶15

17.12.2009 Similarly statement of another coaccused by name Ashok More has earlier been recorded on 11.12.2008 and his 2^nd statement has been recorded on 18.12.2009. On considering these two statements, I find that from them it can be inferred that the main purchaser of the wood was applicant no.2 Abhijit Praful Chitnis @ Abhijit Patil.

¶16

2 As far as applicant no.1 Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar is concerned, the role attributed to him that he had introduced the accused Ashok More to the alleged purchaser applicant no.2 Abhijit Chitnis and was present in the village where a contract to cut the wood was given. Taking into account the material which is available on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2 Abhijit Praful Chitnis @ Abhijit Patil in both these applications. His applications for grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, rejected.

¶17

3 As far as applicant no.1 Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar is concerned, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, he will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/ in each case with one surety in the like amount subject to the further condition that he reports to the investigating officer as and when called upon by him in writing. It is clarified that these prima facie findings will not be used in the trial.

¶18

(R.S.MOHITE,J)

¶19

¶20

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar and Anr. 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

Ashok Ratanchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramrudavan Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Bhikan Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shreekant Rajaram Kumbhar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Pune Vs the General Secretary, SBI Staff Union

Mrs. Beena Rajendra Shah Vs State of Maharashtra