Allowed

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2011APPLN/3441/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application seeking anticipatory bail for two accused facing charges of abetment to suicide and offences under the SC/ST Act following a suicide. The court noted unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and confirmed earlier interim protection while directing the accused to attend investigation and restrict movement.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; interim protection confirmed; accused directed to give attendance and restricted from entering Nipani Jalgaon village.

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application No. 3441 of 2011

¶4

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut, Aged : 20 years, Occupation : Labourer.

¶5

Tanhaji Janardan Pathade, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Labourer.

¶6

Both R/o. Vasu-Jalgaon, Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicants.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, holding for Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, for the applicants.

¶11

Mr. B.J. Sonawane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶12

(2)

¶13

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶14

DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2011

¶15

COURT'S ORDER :

¶16

Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties.

¶17

This is an application preferred by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. I-315/2011, registered with Police Station, Pathardi (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act.

¶18

It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant Sunita w/o. Ambadas Borde, on 1st August 2011. The deceased Priyanka was the daughter of the complainant who was aged about 16 years. It is alleged in the said complaint that prior to 19-7-2011, the deceased had disclosed before the complainant, that the applicant no.2 was harassing her and was giving threats to her, that she should forgot Ankush i.e. applicant no.1 as his marriage was fixed on 20th July 2011. However, on 19th July 2011, between 17.00 hours and 18.00 hours, deceased Priyanka

¶19

(3)

¶20

committed suicide by hanging herself. Accidental death was registered in respect of the said incident on 19th July 2011, however, complaint was lodged on 1st August 2011.

¶21

It is submitted that the marriage of applicant no.1 Ankush took place on 20th July 2011, as well as, marriage of applicant no.2 Tanhaji has also taken place on 7th August 2011.

¶22

The investigation papers were made available by the learned APP for perusal purpose, and on perusal of the said investigation papers, and more particularly, contents of the complaint, it is material to note that although the deceased committed suicide on 19th July 2011, and accidental death was registered in respect of the said incident on the same day, the complaint came to be lodged after lapse of 11 days i.e. on 1st August 2011, and apparently, said delay has not been explained. Moreover, the question arises, when the deceased had disclosed before the complainant regarding alleged threats given by applicant no.2, why complainant lodged the complaint after a lapse of 11 days and did not lodge the complaint immediately after occurrence of the incident.

¶23

Besides, it is apparent that the interim protection has been granted to the applicants by this Court by order dated 5th

¶24

(4)

¶25

August 2011, and applicants were directed to give attendance before investigator, and there is no grievance of the respondent that the applicants have not given their attendance as per the directions.

¶26

Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering very ingredients of Section 306 of IPC which has been applied in the instant case, it appears that apparently, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants for further progress in the investigation, and hence, present application deserves to be allowed.

¶27

In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed and interim protection granted to the applicants by order dated 5th August 2011 stands confirmed. However, applicant nos.1 and 2 are directed to give attendance before investigator, as and when required in writing, till completion of the investigation, and the applicant nos.1 and 2 also shall not enter into the village, namely, Nipani Jalgaon (Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar), till completion of the investigation.

¶28

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE

¶29

bgp/ka3441

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush @ Dada Kailas Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Sushilabai Rambhau Charhatkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Feroz Khan Chand Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharshtra

Savitra Dattatraya Rakte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Manohar Lad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah Thr. Pp

Narayan Motilal Kabre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamajik Gangaram Dudde Vs the State of Maharashtra