Allowed

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012APPLN/3365/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to four applicants arrested for offences including assault and attempt to murder under the IPC. The High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals upon conviction's release bonds, finding the injury certificates did not bear out the gravity of the charge. The court dismissed the prosecution's reliance on the mere addition of a section 307 charge without substantive evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 3506 of 2012 and No. 3365 of 2012 are allowed; applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 30,000 and surety in like amount.

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 3506-2012+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3506 OF 2012

¶4

Govardhan S/o Jadusingh Dehangal
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,
All R/o Nandkheda,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
at the instance of Badnapur
Police Station, District Jalna RESPONDENT

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3365 OF 2012

¶9

1. Prahlad S/o Shivlal Dehangal
 Age : 37 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Vijay S/o Shamlal Dehangal,
 Age : 23 years, Occu.: Agri.,
3. Poonamsingh S/o Babulal Dehangal
 Age : 22 years, Occu.: Student
 All R/o Nandkheda,
 Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna APPLICANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra

¶12

at the instance of Badnapur
Police Station, District Jalna RESPONDENT

¶13

.....
Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶14

.....

¶15

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2012

¶16

(2) Cri. Appln. 3506-2012+

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

1. Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The present applicants in both the Criminal

¶20

Applications who were arrested on 12.7.2012 for the
offences punishable under section 143, 147, 149, 307,
504 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Badnapur Police
Station in Crime no. I-114 of 2012, are praying for
their release on bail.

¶21

alleged that on that day, the present applicants
alongwith one another accused had accosted
complainant, his wife Ranjana and son Satish over the
previous enmity. In the said incident, applicant

¶22

Poonamsingh kicked in the stomach of Ranjana while

¶23

applicant Govardhan gave a blow of spade over her

¶24

head. Even another lady accused Chamkorbai had also

¶25

beaten Ranjana. The complainant when tried to rescue

¶26

his wife, at that time Vijay and Pralhad gave fist
and kick blows. In the incident, applicant Govardhan

¶27

gave a blow of axe over the nose of the complainant,

¶28

wherein bleeding injury was there. The very applicant

¶29

Govardhan also gave a blow of the handle of the axe

¶30

(3) Cri. Appln. 3506-2012+

¶31

to son Satish. On the basis of this complaint,
offence came to be registered.

¶32

4.Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that all the applicants are behind the bars since
12.7.2012. In the injury certificate collected by

¶33

the prosecution merely simple injuries like
lacerations are shown which would not bear out that
offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C.

¶34

was committed by any of the applicants. He submits
that the investigation is now complete and merely
because the Investigation Officer has added offence
punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, it would not be appropriate to keep all the
accused behind the bars.

¶35

injured eye witness has filed the complaint and there

¶36

was an attempt to commit murder, and since
investigation is incomplete, the applicants do not

¶37

deserve to be released on bail.

¶38

6.Considered the nature of the allegations and

¶39

the copies of the injury certificates produced before
me. Further the investigation is almost complete.

¶40

(4) Cri. Appln. 3506-2012+

¶41

In my view, the applicants deserve to be released on

¶42

bail.

¶43

7. In the circumstances, both the Applications are allowed. Applicants be released on bail on furnishing of P.R. bond in the sum of 30,000/- each and also upon furnishing surety each in the like`

¶44

amount.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.]
arp/

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. 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

Hanaraj Yograj Patil Vs the State of Mah

Sau. Haribaibajirao Somwanshi Vs Haribhau Rajaram Ankulwar

Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Balu Balbhim Gurav and Anr. Vs the State of Mah.

Rameshwar Ashokrao Gadekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.