Ramdas S/O Vitthal Shirnath Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Mahagaon, Tah Mahagaon Distt Yavatmal

¶1

3008aba289.12.odt

¶2

1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.289/2012 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.290/2012

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.289/2012

¶6

Ramdas son of Vitthal Shirnath

¶7

...Versus...

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through the Police Station Officer,
Mahagaon, Tahsil Mahagaon, District � Yavatmal

¶9

AND

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.290/2012

¶11

Ramdas son of Vitthal Shirnath

¶12

...Versus...

¶13

The State of Maharashtra through the Police Station Officer, Mahagaon, Tahsil Mahagaon, District - Yavatmal

¶14

¶15

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶16

¶17

Shri K.S. Narwade, Adv. for applicant in both applications

¶18

 Shri N.R. Rode, APP for respondent in both applications

¶19

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 30.08.2012

¶20

1.Heard rival submissions at length on

¶21

both the anticipatory bail applications, preferred
by the applicant. The applicant is apprehending
his arrest in Crime No.145/2012, registered

¶22

3008aba289.12.odt

¶23

2

¶24

against him apparently on 1.7.2012 for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34
of Indian Penal Code. The applicant is also
apprehending his arrest in another Crime
No.146/2012, registered on 2.7.2012 with the same
police station for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 452, 143, 147 of Indian Penal Code.
2.At present, investigation in both the
offences is still continuing. So far incident of
Crime No.145/2012 is concerned, on that night at
about 9:30 p.m., when one Sachin Nale was driving
a motor-jeep, there was some altercation between
him and the present applicant and his two
associates. In the said altercation, the applicant
and his associates assaulted said Sachin on his
face by fist, blows so also on his back and left
knee by means of sticks. When the wife and niece
of said Sachin were tried to intervene, they were
also assaulted by the associates of the applicant
on their head by means of sticks, due to which
there were contusions. Apparently, immediately on
that night, a report was lodged by Sachin with the
concerned Police Station, alleging the entire
incident, taking the names of all associates
including the present applicant. Still on the said
report, disclosing commission of cognizable
offences, apparently no action seems to have been
taken by the police. After this incident, there

¶25

3008aba289.12.odt

¶26

3

¶27

were other instances of assaults and altercations
between the parties and thereafter there was major
incident of assault on said Sachin at the hands of
present applicant and his four other associates
including the persons, who were earlier named in
Crime No.145/2012. Said major assault occurred on
30.6.2012 after about four days from the incident
in Crime No.145/2012. This major assault occurred
at about 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the house of said
Sachin, wherein the present applicant and his four
other associates entered the house of Sachin and
assaulted him severely with fist, blows and kicks.
One of his associates forcibly made said Sachin to
drink poisonous substance and it happened in the
courtyard of the house of Sachin. This incident of
assault was witnessed by the wife, mother,
brother, daughter and sister of said Sachin as
reportedly their statements were recorded by the
police on 4.7.2012 or there above and accordingly
of the eye witnesses. After the assault on said
Sachin on the evening of 30.6.2012 and
administering the poisonous substance, he was
taken to medical help. However, while under
treatment, he died on 2.7.2012 in the evening and
as such thereafter, on the same day of the death,
FIR was lodged by the brother of said Sachin
against the present applicant and his four other
associates for the offences as mentioned above and

¶28

3008aba289.12.odt

¶29

4

¶30

mainly punishable under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code and for the offence of rioting and
trespass etc..

¶31

3.Learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the FIR in Crime No.146/2012 was
lodged belatedly after about 3 days. Probably the
explanation to this is appearing in the complaint
lodged in the said matter as the relatives of
Sachin were engaged in life saving activities of
said Sachin, while he was under treatment in the
hospital and when he died, report was made to the
police.

¶32

4.During the argument, learned Counsel for
the applicant stated regarding defence of the
applicant that according to his knowledge,
deceased himself had got poison and consumed it
and committed suicide.

¶33

5.In the light of the factual position as
mentioned above as to statements of more than 5
eye witnesses, this defence has no meaning to be
considered in favour of the applicant so far as
his release on anticipatory bail is concerned.

¶34

6.Considering that to the incident of
30.6.2012, there are more than 5 eye witnesses as
mentioned above and in fact there are witnesses
for the earlier incident of 26.06.2012 also and
considering the seriousness and application of
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, it is not in the

¶35

3008aba289.12.odt

¶36

5

¶37

fitness of the situation to release the present
applicant on anticipatory bail. There is no merit
in the present applications inasmuch as though it
is argued on behalf of the applicant that one of
the co-accused has already been released on bail
after his arrest. It is observed by this Court
from the order of said release of the co-accused
on bail that it was granted considering the old
age of the said accused being 75 years age and no
positive role was assigned to him as to
administering of poison to the victim on the night
of 30.6.2012. In any event, there cannot be parity
or even necessity to consider the grant of bail,
granted to the co-accused. In the result, both the
present applications for anticipatory bail are
rejected and accordingly disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

ssw

Ramdas S/O Vitthal Shirnath v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Mahagaon, Tah Mahagaon Distt Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramdas S/O Vitthal Shirnath v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Mahagaon, Tah Mahagaon Distt Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.I. Vs Chhutulal @ Dharmu S/O Nakhu Pache

Pradip Nanduji Patre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ps Keshori

Sau Khelan W/O Rajkumar Gabhne Vs Suraj S/O Prakash Rangari

The Bureau of Indian Standars the Govt of Indian Organization through Its Director Shri K Raja Vs M/S Jailaxmi Agro Industries Nagpur and Others

Julekhabee W/O Sheikh Rashi Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Patrod Tq Achalpur Distt Amravati

Chunnilal Murlidhar Achyut Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Sonegaon Nagpur City Nagpur