Dismissed

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC22 Feb 2012APPLN/336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This 2012 criminal application sought bail for an accused facing charges of harboring a criminal and forgery relating to a death certificate. The High Court of Bombay rejected the bail plea, deeming the offences grave despite some being legally bailable. The court held that the overall criminal intention and severity of the allegations warranted denying bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected, and the applicant was denied bail.

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan Vs the State of Mah — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Cri.Appl.336 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2012

¶5

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan, Age-44 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Old Civil Quarters, Chitale Road,

¶6

Ahmednagar APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned advocate for the applicant. Mr.R.P.Phatke, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 22/02/2012

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

This is an application for regular bail. 5 other accused persons were named as accused in Crime No.I-302/2009, registered with Kotwali Police Station u/s. 302, 201, 120B, 466, 474, 214 r/w. 34 of IPC.

¶15

In the process of investigation, on account of certain developments and acts which are attributed to the applicant, the applicant has been named as accused and has been arrested. Offences alleged against him are u/s.201, 120B, 466 and 477 of IPC.

¶16

The allegations against the applicant are that :-

¶17

(a) He had pursuaded Dr.Vijay Bhagwan Ganbote to give an opinion as to the injuries being caused to deceased Ashok Lande due to accident.

¶18

¶19

Cri.Appl.336 of 2012

¶20

(b) He had offered money to Dr.Vijay Bhagwan Ganbote for giving opinion favourable to the accused persons.

¶21

(c) He had communicated to Dr.Vijay Bhagwan Ganbote if he delivers the opinion as to cause of death due to homicidal injuries, there would be threat to his life and personal security.

¶22

(d) He had snatched and torned the opinion about cause of death of victim Ashok Lande which was prepared by Dr.Vijay Bhagwan Ganbote.

¶23

(e) He has with the help of one witness namely Anish Sharad Palande by pursuading and tempting him to forge Dr.Vijay Ganbote’s signature, procured a forged opinion as to cause of death to be accidental.

¶24

In support of bail application, learned advocate Mr.Chatterji has argued

¶25

that :-

¶26

(a) Section 201 r/w. 120B are bailable, being punishable with only half of the sentence in relation to the main offence towards which these offences are alleged. Therefore the offence is bailable.

¶27

(b) As regards offence punishable u/s. 466, 474 of IPC, those offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and are not punishable with life imprisonment and in this background, any graveness of offence attributed to the applicant by the prosecution does not emerge.

¶28

(c) Dr.Vijay Ganbote’s statement does not inspire confidence because he has divulged the information about being pressurized, offered money and about destruction of document of opinion as to cause of death, almost after a period of 2 years from the date of commission of those acts by the applicant.

¶29

(d) In this premise, the accused is entitled for bail.

¶30

¶31

Cri.Appl.336 of 2012

¶32

Learned APP Mr.Phatke prays for rejection of prayer for bail on the following grounds :-

¶33

(a) The offences/subject matter when considered in the totality, are grave.

¶34

(b) Just because the offences are bailable and considering that those are punishable for duration lesser than life imprisonment, the bail ought not to be granted as a matter of course or as a matter of right.

¶35

This Court has examined the various aspects involved in the matter. Perused the documents accompanying the charge sheet, first as well supplimentary statements of Dr.Vijay Ganbote and of witness Anish Sharad Palande.

¶36

At this stage, considering the sum effect of the entire evidence, gathered by the prosecution, it is seen prima facie that the applicant is involved in commission of offence u/s. 201 r/w 120B of IPC.

¶37

The destruction of document i.e. the opinion as to cause of death originally prepared by Dr.Vijay Ganbote, other provisions of IPC too may get attracted.

¶38

The accusation is as to fabricating the expert’s opinion as regards the cause of death, as accidental in place of “homicidal”. This accusation, prima facie attracts the offence u/s. 466 and 474 of IPC etc. which offence is punishable for life. All these acts render the offences for more graver then what is being represented.

¶39

While considering the bail, the aspect that offence is bailable can be seen in isolation, does not impress this Court.

¶40

The offence, being grave, may have to be seen in the light of conduct and

¶41

4 Cri.Appl.336 of 2012

¶42

over all criminal intention of accused as is emerging prima facie. From this point of view, the offence committed by the applicant is grave enough for enabling and requiring the Court to take the different and stern point of view.

¶43

In the above situation, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has not made out the case for grant of bail. Application is rejected.

¶44

(A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶45

khs/FEB.2012/336-12

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ramakant Dhavan v. the State of Mah

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

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

Bhausaheb Asaram Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Raju Gulab @ Raju Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra