Allowed

Bharat @ Raghunath Manikrao Dhale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Feb 2012APPLN/193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in an anticipatory bail application. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting a free fight, casting doubt on the application of Section 307 IPC. Relief granted subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicants directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each.

Bharat @ Raghunath Manikrao Dhale and Ors. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CriApln193/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2012

¶5

1. Bharat @ Raghunath s/o Manikrao Dhale

¶6

Applicants

¶7

2. Madan s/o Manikrao Dhale

¶8

3. Sanjay s/o Manikrao Dhale

¶9

 V E R S U S

¶10

 The State of Maharashtra

¶11

Respondent

¶12

 Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the applicants
Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State

¶13

 CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2012

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

1.Applicants are named as accused in Crime No. 72 of
2011, registered at Basamba Police Station, District Hingoli.

¶16

2.Applicants has lodged report which is registered as
Crime No. 71 of 2011, in same police station against various
accused persons who are informant and/or witnesses in Crime
No. 72 of 2011.

¶17

3.Perusal of the record shows that victims in Crime
No. 72 of 2011 have suffered various injuries, which have

¶18

inter alia resulting into fracture etc. Victims namely Pandit

¶19

Laxmanrao Dhale and Bebabai Laxmanrao Dhale have also suffered

¶20

2 CriApln193/12

¶21

injuries, which are caused by hard and blunt weapons. These
injuries are described in the medico-legal-certificates as
simple injuries.

¶22

4.The injured inflicted on the victims from the group
of present applicants were examined on 30.09.2011, while the
victims in which applicants are in jail were also examined on
the same day and time.

¶23

5.In these premises, from what prima facie appears is
that it is a clear case of free fight. Therefore,
applicability of Section 307 of I.P.C. would come into doubt.

¶24

6.In the result, applicants are entitled for the
relief sought for.

¶25

7.Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
‘B’. Applicants shall furnish personal bond and surety bond
in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each.

¶26

 ( A. H. JOSHI, J. )

¶27

SRM/22/2/12

Bharat @ Raghunath Manikrao Dhale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat @ Raghunath Manikrao Dhale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Sahebrao Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Imtiaz Ali Khan Basharat Ali Khan Vs the State of Mah

Raju @ Rajendra Buwaji Pagare Vs the State of Mah

Bhausaheb Asaram Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Raju Gulab @ Raju Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan Vs the State of Mah