The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed the applicant's application for anticipatory bail. Finding that injury certificates corroborated the complainant's case regarding an assault with an axe, the court held it was not a fit case for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
criapln3488-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3488 OF 2012
Deepak Piraji Kambale
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
.....
Mr. Anand Chawre, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. P.N. Muley, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 12th September, 2012
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard both sides.
2.Apprehending arrest at the hands of Ahmedpur
Police Station in connection with Crime No. 107/2012,
for the offence punishable under section 395 of the
I.P. Code, the present applicant is praying for his
release on anticipatory bail.
3.The complaint is filed by Santosh Wadkar on
28th June, 2012 regarding the incident that was
occurred on 25th June, 2012. He alleged in the
complaint that while he alongwith his family members
was sleeping in his house, the present applicant
alongwith his family members barged in the house. At
(2)
criapln3488-12
that time, the present applicant Deepak assaulted the
complainant with an axe and injured his forearm. The
rest of the accused criminally intimidated in the
incident. They also took away the gold ornaments and
cash of Rs. 20,000/-. On the basis of this
complaint, FIR came to be filed.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that FIR is filed after two days of the alleged
incident. The applicant was not referred by the
police to the medical hospital. Civil litigation
between the parties is pending and even on the
complaint from the applicant's side, the present
complainant is facing the criminal case. Rest of the
accused are already released on anticipatory bail.
However, the application of the present applicant was
rejected by the Sessions Court. In the
circumstances, he submitted that anticipatory bail be
granted to the applicant.
5.Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed
the application. He submits that delay in filing FIR
is explained in the FIR. The injury certificate
would show that the applicant himself went to the
criapln3488-12
(3)
Rural Hospital, Ahmedpur. The injury certificate
would bear out the fact that the right shoulder of
the applicant was injured with an injury admeasuring
6x2x1 cms alongwith one another simple injury.
6.Considering all the above facts, that the
injury certificate prima facie corroborates the
complainant's case and at this stage, there is
explanation for belated filing of the FIR, in my
view, this is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
[ M.T. JOSHI ]
JUDGE
npj/criapln3488-12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest for an offence punishable under section 395 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Piraji Kambale
The State of Maharashtra
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court