Allowed

Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Aug 2011APPLN/2844/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application filed by two applicants seeking regular bail. The court found no propriety in maintaining custody as the FIR was silent on key allegations against them and the investigation was complete, directing release upon furnishing surety.

What did the court decide?

Release of Applicant No.1 Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble and Applicant No.2 Shivaji @ Suryakant Dagdu Bansode on bail by furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000 and one surety each, on conditions of quarterly at

Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶4

Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble, Age : 65 years,

¶5

Occupation : Agriculture.

¶6

Shivaji @ Suryakant Dagdu Bansode, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Both r/o. Ankoli, Taluka & District : Latur. .. Applicants.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.

¶9

Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶10

Smt. R.K. Ladda, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.

¶11

Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶12

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶13

DATE : 25TH AUGUST 2011

¶14

COURT'S ORDER :

¶15

Perused the investigation papers in the present Crime No. 30/2011, as well as, perused the investigation papers of Crime No. 31/2011, which were called for in pursuance of the directions by my predecessor on 2nd August 2011, and also heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally.

¶16

This is an application preferred by the applicants seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 30/2011, registered at Police Station, Murud (District : Latur), for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Parmeshwar Bankat Jadhav on 11-4-2011, in respect of occurrence of the incident at about 07.00 p.m. on 10-4-2011. The victim of the aforesaid occurrence of the incident of altercation is one Laxman Dagadu Jadhav who succumbed to the injuries sustained during the said altercation on 14-4-2011. It is alleged in the said FIR that the victim Laxman

¶18

(3) Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶19

intervened into the quarrel of the applicant party and complainant party and he was dragged and taken into the house, and door thereof was closed and he was assaulted, and due to the shouts, mob was gathered, and hence, the complainant, namely, Parmeshwar, break open the door and entered and found that besides the assailants, Mudrikabai and her sister-in-law i.e. wife of Bhuraji Kamble were present there and while complainant was lifting Laxman, aforesaid two ladies threw chilly power on their person and eyes, and at that time, Shivaji Bansode was making telephone call to one Pankaj Kate. Thus, it is apparent from the contents of the said FIR, that deceased Laxman was assaulted behind close door of the house.

¶20

At this juncture, learned APP Smt. R.K. Ladda, for the respondent, canvassed that there are 7 eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, namely, Shahuraj Adgale, Shankar Jadhav, Bhaskar Adgale, Sanjay Adgale, Namdeo Jadhav, Pradeep Jadhav and Dhananjay Jadhav, and their statements disclose that the applicant no.1 herein assaulted the victim Laxman by brick on his head, and the injury certificate of Laxman discloses cause of death due to head injury, and brick and stick were discovered at the instance of applicant no.1. It is also submitted that the name of applicant no.2 appear in the complaint and he dragged Laxman into the house, closed door

¶21

(4) Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶22

and assaulted him.

¶23

On the background of the aforesaid submissions, the very contents of the FIR are silent in respect of assault by applicant no.1, Ambadas, upon victim Laxman on his head, as well as, there is no whisper in the contents of the FIR, that applicant no.2, Shivaji @ Suryakant, dragged victim Laxman into the house, as well as, contents of the FIR are silent in respect of presence of the aforesaid eye witnesses at the time of occurrence of the incident. On perusal of the contents of the spot panchanama, it appears that stones were pelted and same were found outside the house, which is, apparently, a circumstance in favour of the applicants herein. Besides, it appears that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶24

Hence, having comprehensive view of the matter, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants in custody furthermore, and hence, present applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶25

In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant no.1, Ambadas s/o. Yashwanta Kamble, and applicant no.2, Shivaji @ Suryakant s/o. Dagdu Bansode, be released on bail, in connection with Crime No.

¶26

(5) Criminal Application No. 2844 of 2011

¶27

30/2011, registered at Police Station, Murud (District : Latur), on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- [Rupees fifteen thousand], each, and one surety in the like amount by each of them, on the conditions, (i) applicant nos.1 and 2 shall give attendance before the concerned investigator once in a quarter till disposal of the trial, and (ii) applicant nos.1 and 2 shall not influence upon witnesses and / or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally.

¶28

However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same 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 )

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

bgp/ka2844

Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambadas Yashwanta Kamble 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

Pandharinath Atamaram Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Shantaram Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narsing Vithal Bajgire Vs the State of Maharshtra

Ujwala Madhukamal Hiwale Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Jyoti Sunil Jawale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Arjun Jawale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.