Allowed

Tegbahadur Ambrishsingh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Mar 2010APPLN/479/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application filed by Advocate Thakur seeking anticipatory bail in a case arising from allegations that he influenced a witness not to testify in a murder trial. The court analyzed bailability and ingredients of relevant sections before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with one surety, conditioned not to tamper with witnesses and to report on specific dates.

Tegbahadur Ambrishsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.479 OF 2010

¶4

Mr. Tegbahadur Ambrishsingh Thakur )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent

¶5

Shri A.P. Mundargi Sr.Advocate with O.P.Dubey for the applicant.

¶6

Smt. V. R. Bhonsale APP for the State.

¶7

C oram : R.S.MOHITE,J

¶8

Date : 22nd March, 2010

¶9

¶10

1 This is an application filed by the applicant who is an Advocate. The applicant is

¶11

shown as an accused in C.R.No.250/2009 initially registered by the Goregaon police station but later on transferred to DCB CID, Unit-12, Mumbai. The complaint has been registered on the behest of one Usha Ramalu who was a panch witness in a murder case wherein one Neeraj Grover was murdered. In her statement, she has contended that she was approached by one Raju Wankhede and one other person and told that she should not give evidence in Neeraj Grover murder case. Raju Wankhede told her that in case she gave evidence then she would not be kept alive. Raju Wankhede informed her that she did not know him but if she wanted to ascertain, he could ring up one Advocate Murthy. Raju Wankhede then attempted to contact Advocate Murthy but since telephone connection could not be made, he rang up the present Advocate. Thereafter the conversation which took place between the said witness Usha Ramalu and the present applicant Advocate

¶12

¶13

Thakur may be translated as follows :-

¶14

“ Madam, you help us. I have instructed Mr.Raju Wankhede, you give your deposition as he suggests. He will inform you everything. Do not go to the Court on Monday and if you have to go, depose as we are

¶15

suggesting to you, you will be benefited.”

¶16

2 On perusing the statement attributed to the present applicant, in my view, if proved, the applicant can be said to have committed an offence under Section 214 of IPC. The said section is as follows :-

¶17

“ 214 Whoever gives or causes, or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, or restores or causes the restoration of any property to any person, in consideration of that person’s concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, shall if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine ; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.”

¶18

3 The aforesaid offence is however, a bailable offence. Section 195-A as well as Section 506 part-II which are applied, are both non bailable offences. They however, have different ingredients. Section 195-A requires that a person should be threatened with injury to his person, reputation or property. On the statement as claimed by the applicant, I do not find that the present applicant can be said to have threatened her with injury to person reputation or property. On her own statement, the attempt appears to be to offer her some benefit. Similarly section 506 part-II requires that there should be criminal

¶19

¶20

intimidation. On a plain reading of the complaint, the allegations concerning ingredients of both these sections appears to be against Raju Wankhede. The complainant does not say that the present applicant- Advocate was aware by the earlier threat given by Raju Wankhede.

¶21

4 Apart from this, it is now an admitted position that the complainant has deposed in the murder trial. She has supported the prosecution and her evidence is now over. In the aforesaid circumstances, taking into account that the offence alleged against the present applicant would be in the nature of an offence under Section 214 of IPC which is bailable and since non bailable offences have been attributed to him, though in my view, those sections may not be attracted. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

¶22

5 In the circumstances, it is directed that in the event of his arrest by the DCB CID in the said crime, the applicant will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will not tamper with or contact the witnesses and will report to the investigating officer between 11.00 A.M and 3.00 P.M on 25^th and 26^th March 2010. Application stands disposed off.

¶23

¶24

Tegbahadur Ambrishsingh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tegbahadur Ambrishsingh Thakur 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

Rahul Uttam Yewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mozaum Gesumiyan Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaukat Ramzan Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Pandurang Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Ashok Jasud @ Pappu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Yashwant Mirghane Vs the State of Maharashtra