Dismissed

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2012APPLN/2226/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged the granting of anticipatory bail in a criminal dispute involving serious charges including use of a revolver and attempt to immolate the complainant. The Court held that bail is a discretionary order and dismissed the application as the Sessions Judge exercised discretion judicially.

What did the court decide?

The applications for cancellation of anticipatory bail were dismissed. The order of the Sessions Judge granting bail was upheld.

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.2226 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2226 OF 2012

¶5

Mahesh s/o Gajendra Shewale

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra (P.I.) Karjat Police Station, Taluka Karjat, Dist.Ahmednagar

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

WITH -

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLIATION NO.2181 OF 2012

¶12

Mr V.J.Dixit, Senior counsel i/b Mr R.R.Karpe, Advocate for applicant

¶13

Mr P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶14

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶15

DATE : 2^nd November 2012

¶16

PER COURT

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

The present applications are filed for cancellation of the order of release of concerned respondents in all the applications, on anticipatory bail granted by learned Sessions Judge in Crime No.73/2012, for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 read with sec.149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 143, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter additional offences under Section 307, 511 read with sec.149 were added.

¶19

Cri.Appln.No.2226 of 2012

¶20

¶21

The complaint shows that over some previous dispute, about eight persons are claimed to have entered into the shop of the complainant on 29.3.2012 at 10.30 in the morning. At that time one Pravin Ghule at the point of the revolver asked the complainant to close the shop and thereafter started abusing him. One Sachin Ghule poured oil from the drum and attempted to strike a matchstick and to cause the death of the complainant. Further, somebody took away an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the shop. On the basis of the complaint, initially the offence came to be registered only for the lesser offences, as detailed supra. Thereafter, however, the serious offences were added in the remand report. Ultimately, vide an order in Criminal Writ Petition the offences were added to the charge-sheet. The learned Sessions Judge initially granted ad interim anticipatory bail and thereafter made the said order absolute. Aggrieved by the said order the present application is filed.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that when there are affidavits of the eye witnesses and such serious charges are levelled, the learned Sessions Judge should not have passed the order. He submits that when the allegations are that the revolver was used and an attempt to immolate the complaint with the aid of oil was there, a chance to investigate in this matter ought to have given to the Investigating Officer.

¶23

Cri.Appln.No.2226 of 2012

¶24

¶25

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the concerned respondents Mr A.B.Kale points out towards the order passed by this Court in the cross complaint, granting protection of anticipatory bail to the present complainant and his companions in Criminal Applications No.4301 of 2012 and 4302 of 2012 vide order dated 3.10.2012, wherein besides the similar charges, additional charge of offence punishable under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is there.

¶26

The papers show that regarding the incident that has occurred, at the same time and place, two cross complaints are filed, wherein the allegations of use of revolver, attempt to immolate the member of rival group, either with oil or petrol and of dacoity are made. However, finding no visible injury or any corroborative material while this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the complainant’s side, the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the rival group.

¶27

The order regarding the release of bail of an accused is essentially a discretionary order. In the circumstances, unless and until it is shown that discretion was not exercised judicially, the said order cannot be cancelled merely because another probable view is possible. In the circumstances, as discussed supra, I do

¶28

Cri.Appln.No.2226 of 2012

¶29

¶30

not find that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised his discretion properly. In the result, the applications are dismissed.

¶31

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶32

(vvr/2226.12criappln)

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Shaikh Salim Sk. Rashid Vs the State of Mah

Imtiyaz Khan Sartaj Khan Vs the State of Mah

Imtiyaz Khan Sartaj Khan Vs the State of Mah

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal Vs the State of Mah

Santosh Rabaji Mohite Vs the State of Mah