Allowed

Vijay Sandipan Jondhale v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012APPLN/3741/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted bail to an applicant arrested under Section 307 IPC and related offences. The court rejected the respondent's claim of witness influence due to lack of specific allegations, imposing rigorous conditions including a monetary bond, surety, and a territorial ban.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon execution of P.R. Bond and furnishing surety of Rs. 20,000/- each; barred from entering Beed District for three years.

Vijay Sandipan Jondhale Vs the State of Mah — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3741 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3741 OF 2012

¶5

Vijay s/o Sandipan Jondhale

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr R.P.Mote, Advocate for applicant Mr P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 5th October 2012

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Present applicant, who is arrested in Crime No.42/2012, registered at Gevrai Police Station, Taluka Gevrai, District Beed for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 504 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on bail.

¶16

Now, the case is committed to the Sessions Court. The allegations show that over a previous enmity, the present applicant along with two other named persons has assaulted the complainant. The specific allegation against the present applicant is that he took over a knife from his waist and assaulted with the same in the chest of the complainant. One Sachin assaulted with a sickle over the head.

¶17

Cri.Appln.No.3741 of 2012

¶18

¶19

The injury certificate shows that the complainant has received three contused lacerated wounds. First was on forehead above eyebrow, second was in front of ear extending below right eye. The third injury was contused lacerated wound on right side of chest extending from below clavicle to below breast, which was measuring 15 x 2 x 0.5 cm and the injuries were certified as simple injuries by the Medical Officer.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is complete. In the circumstances, the applicant be released on bail.

¶21

The learned A.P.P. states that the complainant has filed an affidavit, thereby swearing on oath that two other accused had not participated in the crime, as is alleged by him in the first information report. In the circumstances, the learned A.P.P. submits that this is a clear case wherein the accused are influencing the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. He further submits that there is recovery of knife at the behest of the present applicant.

¶22

There are no allegations that the present applicant had at any time tried to influence the prosecution witnesses. The apprehension of the learned A.P.P. can be taken care of in this regard by putting certain conditions.

¶23

Cri.Appln.No.3741 of 2012

¶24

¶25

Considering the injury certificate and the report of the Registrar of the Court at Beed that it may take six months time to conclude the trial. In may view, the applicant deserves to be released on bail on certain stringent conditions.

¶26

The application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.42/2012, registered at Gevrai Police Station, Taluka Gevrai, District Beed for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 504 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, upon his execution of P.R. Bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/- and also upon his furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶27

The applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Beed District for a period of three years or till the trial is concluded, whichever occurs earlier, without prior permission of the concerned Court. The applicant shall not anyway try to contact the prosecution witnesses or to influence them.

¶28

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶29

(vvr/3741.12criappln)

Vijay Sandipan Jondhale v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Sandipan Jondhale 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

Vijay Eknath Karale Vs the State of Mah

Vikas Baburao Jadhav Vs the State of Mah

Ganesh Sampat Gore Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Muzaffaroddin Abdul Quadar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Karbhari Sakharam Muley and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Sandip Dilip Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah