Partly allowed

Sangameshwar Laxman Sontakke and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012APPLN/354/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Criminal Application for bail regarding apprehended arrest in a crime involving offences under the IPC, PCR Act, and the SC/ST Act. The High Court perused the case diary and an injunction order, finding disputed facts. It held that bare allegations do not bar granting bail and made an interim ad-bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The ad-interim order of bail passed on 27.1.2012 was made absolute.

Sangameshwar Laxman Sontakke and Ors. Vs the State of Mah… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

crap354.12

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 354 OF 2012

¶5

`1.`	`Sangameshwar s/o Laxman Sontakke,`
`2.`	`Laxman s/o Maroti Sontakke,`
`3.`	`Sulochanabai w/o Laxman Sontakke,`
`4.`	`Dhondiba s/o Dattatraya Sontakke,`
`5.`	`Narayan s/o Ramrao Sontakke,`
`6.`	`Ankush s/o Ramrao Sontakke,`
`7.` `8.`	`Ramrao s/o Maroti Sontakke,` `Subhash s/o Bhaurao Patil,`
`9.`	`Madhav s/o Gyanoba Marlapalle,`
`10.`	`Manohar s/o Madhav Marlapalle,`
`11.`	`Ashok s/o Bhagwat Gunale,`
`12.`	`Arun s/o Bhagwat Gunale` `...Applicants`
	`VERSUS`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra`
`2.`	`The Superintendent of Police,` `Latur.` `...Respondents`

¶6

Shri V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the applicants
Shri D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondents
.....

¶7

CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.
DATED : 05.03.2012.

¶8

PER COURT:-

¶9

1.Applicants are apprehending their arrest

¶10

furtherance to Crime No. 101 of 2011, registered at
Jalkot police station, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur,
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
435, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as
Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act

¶11

2crap354.12

¶12

and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶13

2. Heard both the sides.

¶14

3. Perused the case diary.

¶15

4. Admittedly there is a dispute between the parties

¶16

and the matter is pending before the court.

¶17

5.It is seen from the order passed by the learned 2nd
Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir that an order
of injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs
amongst whom present applicants are.

¶18

6.Though the informant has lodged complaint under
Protection of Civil Rights Act and the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
bare allegation would not preclude the court from
granting the relief.

¶19

7.In this background, the applicants have made out a
case for grant of bail.

¶20

¶21

crap354.12

¶22

8. Ad-interim order passed by this court on 27.1.2012

¶23

is made absolute.

¶24

 (A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶25

dbm/crap354.12

Sangameshwar Laxman Sontakke and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangameshwar Laxman Sontakke and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Avinash Subhash Shinde Vs the State of Mah

Yasmin Abdul Qureshi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Azagar Ibrahimbhai Jeda Vs the State of Mah

Vinod Soma Malche (Bhil) and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Shrinath Haribhau Ghadge Vs the State of Mah

Bharat Rama Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.