Allowed

Shri Ganesh @ Gaju S/O Ashok Koradwar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Police Station Officer

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012ABA/434/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal reference for anticipatory bail, the court examined an allegation of abetting suicide by the applicant. Finding the evidence fragile and noting a conflict of interest preventing common intention with the husband of the deceased, the court granted anticipatory bail on personal surety.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on personal surety of Rs. 5,000 with one solvent surety in the same amount or cash deposit of Rs. 7,000.

Shri Ganesh @ Gaju S/O Ashok Koradwar Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 aba434.12.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.434 OF 2012

¶4

(Shri Ganesh @ Gaju s/o Ashok Koradwar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal)

¶5

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

¶6

- - - - -- Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the applicant, Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

¶7

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 29-10-2012.

¶8

Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. S.S. Jachak for the non-applicant/State.

¶9

The applicant is accused of abetment of suicide committed by deceased Amrapali, aged about 26 years. The deceased was married to Balaji Kisan Pandit. He is the coaccused in the present case. Balaji Kisan Pandit and the deceased were staying on rental basis in the house owned by father of the applicant at village Borgaon (Kadu). The deceased had left her husband's house on 4^th September, 2012 after the quarrel between the deceased and her husband, who is co-accused in the present case. The complaint/First Information Report has been lodged on 8^th September, 2012 by father of the deceased. It appears from the First Information Report that the complainant/father of the deceased was informed by Balaji Kisan Pandit on the same night when the deceased did not return home. The dead body was found after four days and it was taken for PostMortem Examination at the hospital. The complainant came

¶10

2 aba434.12.odt

¶11

to know about the incident and reached the hospital.

¶12

It appears from the First Information Report and the submissions made before me by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the co-accused Balaji Kisan Pandit had seen the applicant and the deceased in an objectionable condition in bathroom of the deceased at the time of bath. The co-accused quarreled with his deceased wife Mrs. Amrapali on that count and he had slapped twice or thrice during course of the quarrel. The deceased, therefore, left home and did not return as stated earlier. The dead body was found on 8^th September, 2012.

¶13

On the facts mentioned hereinabove, it is alleged by the non-applicant that the applicant and Balaji Kisan Pandit, in furtherance of their common intention, have committed offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention ex facie is not acceptable inasmuch as there was conflict of interest between the coaccused Balaji Kisan Pandit and the applicant and therefore, it was impossible for them to share the common intention. Once the applicant was found in an objectionable condition with wife of the co-accused, how it can be accepted that the alleged paramour and the husband of the deceased had committed this offence in furtherance of their common intention.

¶14

The co-accused has been arrested and he is in custody. As far as the applicant is concerned, there appears to be fragile type of evidence, which may amount to no evidence at all. On the basis of this material, it is not permissible to allow the police to arrest the applicant. The

¶15

3 aba434.12.odt

¶16

applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶17

The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount or cash deposit of Rs.7,000/- in lieu of the surety, in the event of his arrest in First Information Report No.158/2012 of Pandharkawada Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Pandharkawada Police Station, District Yavatmal for a period of one month without intimation in writing to the Investigating Officer.

¶19

Interim order stands vacated.

¶20

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

pma

Shri Ganesh @ Gaju S/O Ashok Koradwar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Police Station Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ganesh @ Gaju S/O Ashok Koradwar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Police Station Officer

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

Tulsabai Gyaniram Khandekar and Others Vs Sau. Charushila Kishor Khandekar and One

Dharmendra S/O Dhanraj Kalsarpe Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ramtek, Tah Ramtek Distt Nagpur

Netcore Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Managing Director Rajesh Jain and Others Vs M/S Pinnacle Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Mohamand Ayub S/O Mohamand Amir Vs Ishwar S/O Krushnaji Ragit and Another

Mohamand Ayub S/O Mohamand Amir Vs Ishwar S/O Krushnaji Ragit and Another

Laxman Shriram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Digras Ps Distt Yavatmal