Partly allowed

Appasaheb Mukund Yeole and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Feb 2012APPLN/215/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applications for anticipatory bail in connection with Case No. 307/2011 involving IPC, Environment Protection Act, and State Emblem Act offences were heard. Bail application by one applicant was granted. The remaining applications were disposed of upon undertaking to surrender and withdraw.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to one applicant conditional on personal bond and surety. Combined applications disposed of as withdrawn with undertaking to surrender.

Appasaheb Mukund Yeole and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Cri.Appl.No.215 of 2012 and others

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2012

¶6

Appasaheb S/o.Mukund Yeole, Age-31 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Dongarkinhi, Tal.Patoda, Dist.Beed

¶7

Chakradhar S/o.Subhash Dhakne, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Raimoha, Tal.Shirur, Dist.Beed, now at Sangalwadi, Tal.Shirur, Dist.Beed APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶12

WITH

¶13

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.422 OF 2012

¶14

Vishwambhar S/o.Patilbuva Gade, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Pendgaon, Tal.and Dist.Beed APPLICANT

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT

¶17

Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶18

WITH

¶19

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.423 OF 2012

¶20

Rajendra S/o.Patilbuva Gade, Age-42 years, Occu-Service,

¶21

¶22

Cri.Appl.No.215 of 2012 and others

R/o.Pendgaon,

Tal. And Dist.Beed

APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

¶28

RESPONDENT

¶29

Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶30

(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶31

DATE : 09/02/2012

¶32

PER COURT :

¶33

Applicants in all these applications are named as accused in Crime No. 307/2011, registered in Georai Police Station u/s.259, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 379, 420 of IPC r/w. Sections 15 and 19 of Environment Protection Act r/w. Sections 3,4 and 7 of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005, r/w. Section 48(7), 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

Perused the case diary.

¶36

4. CASE OF APPLICANT NO.2 CHAKRADHAR SUBHASH DHAKNE IN

¶37

CRI.APPL.NO.215/2012

¶38

His case is that he is the owner of truck in which the earth moving machine owned by Appasaheb Yeole was transported. The role of applicant no. 2 is thus limited to the extent of transportation of the earth moving machine. His role in theft of sand as thief, abater, conspirator or otherwise is not shown in the FIR.

¶39

¶40

Cri.Appl.No.215 of 2012 and others

¶41

In this background, this applicant Chakradhar Subhash Dhakne is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶42

In the event of arrest, applicant no.2 Chakradhar Dhakne be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate day commencing from 14/02/2012, between 3 to 7 p.m. for one week and thereafter as and when directed.

¶43

COMMON ORDER AS REGARDS APPLICANTS IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.422/2012, 423/2012 AND APPLICANT NO.1 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.215/2012.

¶44

In the midst of hearing, learned advocates for applicants pray for permission to withdraw these application and undertake that their clients would appear and surrender before the Investigating Officer on 13/02/2012 and co-operate to the investigation and apply for bail in accordance with Law.

¶45

In view of this statement, applications are disposed as withdrawn.

¶46

(A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶47

khs/FEB.2012/cri.appl.215-12

Appasaheb Mukund Yeole and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appasaheb Mukund Yeole and Anr. 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

Pushpa Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu Bapu Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Onkar Patil Vs the State of Mah

Shivaji Babasaheb Jejurkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rajendra Kaduba Gajare Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Gurvindarsing Kuldeepsing Tuteja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.