Partly allowed

Ajit Tukuram Sable and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012ABA/46/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the application of applicants Nos. 1 and 2 as not pressed after an adverse indication. For applicants Nos. 3 to 7, the court released them on bail requiring personal surety and P.R. Bond with reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Nos. 3 to 7 granted bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with solvent sureties; Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 dismissed as not pressed.

Ajit Tukuram Sable and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

sjs 1 ABA-46.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE � CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2012
{For Anticipatory Bail}

¶3

1. Ajit Tukuram Sable

¶4

2. Rajesh Satyanarayana Gundetti 3. Sunil Purshottam Solanki 4. Anil Purshottam Solanki

¶5

5. Dipul Jeetendra Mehta

¶6

6. Darshan Bansilal Dave 7. Ambadas Jijabhau Sarvade .... Applicants Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶8

Shri V.V. Purwant i/b Ms Nayana Pardeshi
for the Applicants.

¶9

Shri K.V. Saste, APP, for the State.

¶10

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶11

DATED: JANUARY 16, 2012

¶12

P.C:

¶13

1.After it was indicated that the
application of applicant Nos.1 and 2 will not
be granted, the learned counsel for the
applicants does not press their application.
The application of applicant Nos.1 and 2 is
therefore dismissed as not pressed.

¶14

2.As far as rest of the applicants are

¶15

sjs 2 ABA-46.12

¶16

concerned, since the assault attributed to them is only by fisticuffs, there presence in custody may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Though the learned APP has a very strong objection, since according to him they formed an unlawful assembly, applicant Nos.3 to 7, that is, Sunil, Anil, Dipul, Darshan and Ambadas, in the event of their arrest in C.R. No.530 of 2011 of Vasai Police Station, District Thane, be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of 25,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to`

¶17

25,000/- per person on the condition that they shall report at the police station concerned on 23-1-2012 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O..`

¶18

3.The applicants shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer and they shall not leave the
country without the prior permission of the
trial Court.

¶19

4.This order shall remain in force till

¶20

sjs 3 ABA-46.12 the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in AIR 2011 SC 312.

¶21

5.The application of applicant Nos.3 to
7 accordingly stands disposed of.

Ajit Tukuram Sable and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Tukuram Sable and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. Vs St Ate of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.

Bhimrao Deu Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishnukant Gangadhar Gite Vs Usha Dhruva Damare and Anr.

Abida Shaikh W/O Anwar Gulam Mohd. Shaikh Vs Anwar Gulam Mohd and Ors.