Allowed

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

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012APPLN/834/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to Bharat and Sarubai Rathod, who were accused of criminal trespass, assault, and theft under the IPC. The court noted strained relations and found prima facie no guilt, ordering them to furnish individual personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 10,000 each.

Bharat Rama Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CriApln834/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 834 OF 2012

¶5

1. Bharat s/o Rama Rathod, age 46 yrs, Applicants

¶6

2. Sarubai w/o Rama Rathod, Age 66 yrs,

¶7

Both r/o Renapur, Tq.Renapur, Dist. Latur

¶8

V E R S U S

¶9

 The State of Mah. and another

¶10

Respondents

¶11

 Shri R.B. Deshmukh Advocate for the applicants
Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents/State

¶12

 CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2012

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

2. Present applicants and three other persons are named

¶16

as accused in Crime No. 119 of 2011 of Renapur Police Station,
under Sections 447, 379 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.

¶17

3.The accusation is of criminal trespass, assault,
theft etc.

¶18

4.In all eight accused have been arrayed. Out of

¶19

those, one is handicapped, one is minor and present applicant

¶20

2 CriApln834/12

¶21

No.2 is 66 years old.

¶22

5.Perusal of the case-diary what emerges is that role
of these accused persons is not explicitly described.

¶23

6.Admittedly, parties are at loggerhead. Present
crime is registered prior in time to grant of injunction
against the accused persons.

¶24

7.It prima facie appears that the F.I.R. has been
lodged due to enmity or strained relations. Considering the
exaggeration, applicants may not be guilty of the offence.

¶25

8.In this background, applicants have made out a case
for the relief sought.

¶26

9.Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
‘B’. Applicants shall furnish personal bond and surety bond
in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each.

¶27

 ( A. H. JOSHI, J. )

¶28

SRM/5/3/12

¶29

3 CriApln834/12

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Shrinath Haribhau Ghadge Vs the State of Mah