Allowed

Vaijinath Sheshrao Khedkar and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012APPLN/3928/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under section 438 CrPC, the High Court allowed anticipatory bail for two applicants. The matter was settled after an affidavit from the victim indicated the complaint arose from misunderstanding and was now resolved. A prior ad-interim bail order for one applicant became absolute, and the other was granted bail upon bond and surety execution.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; ad-interim bail of applicant No. 2 made absolute; applicant No. 1 granted bail on Rs. 20,000 bond + surety; appearance before IO within 8 weeks.

Vaijinath Sheshrao Khedkar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1)

¶2

criapln3928-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3928 OF 2012

¶5

Vaijinath Sheshrao Khedkar
and another APPLICANTS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

.....

¶10

Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate holding for Mr. S.R.
Shirsat, advocate for the applicants.
Mr. R.P. Phatake, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶11

.....

¶12

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATED : 18th September, 2012

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

1.Heard both sides.

¶16

2.The present application, apprehending arrest

¶17

of the applicants at the hands of Shirur (Kasar)
Police Station, District Beed, in connection with
Crime No. A-112/12, for the offences punishable under
section 326, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the I.P. Code, is
filed. Ad-interim relief was already granted to

¶18

applicant No. 2 Sheshrao Khedkar, since the only
allegation against him is that he had joined in
abusing the complainant.

¶19

3.During the course of hearing, learned

¶20

(2)

¶21

criapln3928-12

¶22

counsel Mr. A.V. Khedkar, appearing for the

¶23

complainant, has placed on record an affidavit of the
victim/complainant, namely Keshav s/o Ramrao Khedkar,
indicating thereby that the complaint was outcome of
misunderstanding between the complainant and the
present applicant and the same is now settled.

¶24

4.Considering the fact that the complaint is
outcome of the earlier animosity, which is now
settled, in my view, both the applicants deserve to

¶25

be released on anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order.

¶26

5.The application is allowed. The order of

¶27

grant of ad-interim bail to applicant No. 2 Sheshrao
s/o Ananda Khedkar, passed on 31st August, 2012, is
hereby made absolute on the same terms and
conditions. In the event of arrest of applicant No.
1 Vaijinath s/o Sheshrao Khedkar, in connection with
Crime No. A-112/12, registered with Police Station,
Shirur (Kasar), for the offences punishable under
section 326, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of

¶28

the I.P. Code, he be released on bail upon his
execution of a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-

¶29

criapln3928-12

¶30

(3)

¶31

(rupees twenty thousand) and also upon furnishing a
surety in the like amount. The said applicant No. 1
Vaijinath shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when reasonably called for the purpose
of investigation/interrogation, for a period of eight
weeks from the date of this order.

¶32

 JUDGE

¶33

npj/criapln3928-12

Vaijinath Sheshrao Khedkar and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijinath Sheshrao Khedkar and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Shridhar Bade Vs the State of Mah

Kanaiyya Madhukar Kasar Vs the State of Mah

Ravindra Shivgouda Patil Vs the State of Mah

Dattatraya Tulshiram Raskonda Vs the State of Mah

Rambhau Vaijnath Bidgar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bhausaheb Babasaheb Jarange and Anr. Vs the State of Mah