Allowed

Shivaji Bapurao Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jun 2011APPLN/1988/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad allowed two Criminal Applications for anticipatory bail, confirming ad-interim relief granted in favour of the applicants on similar conditions as the other side, subject to cooperation with investigation and restrictions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief granted in favour of the applicants is confirmed; applicants must cooperate in investigation, appear at police station on Sundays for one month, and not tamper with witnesses.

Shivaji Bapurao Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 Cri.A.1988.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1988 OF 2011

¶4

1.	Shivaji Bapurao Yadav,
2.	Vikas Vishnu Yadav,
3. 4.	Balasaheb Bapurao Yadav, Mandhukar Bapurao Yadav, All R/o Rajendra Giri Ngar, Basmat Road, Parbhani. Ta & District Parbhani..... APPLICNTS.
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, and others....RESPONDENTS.
Sh Sh Shr	... ri.M.P.Kale, Advocate for Applicants. ri.N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for Respondents. i S.S.Choudhari,Advocate for original Complainant. ...

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2508 OF 2011

¶6

1. Bhivrao Vshwanth Yadav
and others	..... APPLICNTS.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.	Shivaji Bapurao Yadav, and others....RESPONDENTS.
	... Shri S.S.Choudhari,Advocate for Applicant-original Complainant. Shri.M.P.Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1to 4
	Shri.N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶9

2 Cri.A.1988.11

¶10

... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2011.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

This application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 33 of 2011 registered with Manwat Police Station, Tq. Manwat, District Parbhani for the offence punishable under sections 326, 452, 147, 148, 149, of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

APP is present with papers of investigation. Both sides are heard. Original complainant has filed application for permission to assist APP. Application No.2508 of 2011 is allowed. Advocate Shri S.S.Chodhari, is allowed to assist APP.

¶14

The copies of FIRs in Crime No. 33 of 2011 and Crime No. 34 of 2011 are produced. Crime No. 34 of 2011 is registered with same police station on the basis of report given by side of the applicants. It was submitted before this Court that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to all members of other side. In other report there is allegation against one Madhav that he has used knife. There is allegation that Bhiva and other accused bricks. Almost all identical allegations are made in the Crime No.

¶15

3 Cri.A.1988.11

¶16

33 of 2011. Allegation made against accused Shivaji and Vikas that they used knife and accused Madhukar Bapurao Yadav and Balasaheb used bricks and rod and sticks. Two sides are close relative of each other and there is dispute between the parties on account of wall situated between their houses. It can be said that two FIRs are photocopies of each other and only names of the persons are different but weapons used are the same. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to other side. Injury certificate of Bhivrao shows that simple injury was sustained to him.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and circumstance of granting relief of anticipatory bail to other side, this Court holds that same relief can be granted to the applicants on similar condition. So, ad-interim relief granted in favour of these applicants is confirmed. So order-

¶18

(a) The applicants shall co-operate during the investigation and to attend the concerned Police Station on on every Sunday for a period of one month from today between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon.

¶19

(b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses .

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

[ T.V.NALAWADE, J.]

¶22

MTK

¶23

4 Cri.A.1988.11

Shivaji Bapurao Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Bapurao Yadav 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

Kamalben Purushottam Patil Vs the State of Mah

Dinkar Bhivrao Dhapate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Sukhdev Auchar Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Ramlalan Sham Tiwari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Vinayanand Bhanudas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devram @ Deorao Bajirao Shende Vs the State of Maharashtra