Allowed

Baban Sopan Parge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Apr 2012BA/451/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under C.R. No. 739 of 2011, the High Court Granted release after finding plausible grounds for over-implication due to discrepancy between injury notes and general omnibus assault allegations.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail in Rs. 50,000 with one surety; restriction on entering Village Aglambe for six months; direction for trial completion within nine months.

Baban Sopan Parge Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

BA-451-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.451 OF 2012

¶5

BABAN SOPAN PARGE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/S.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.M.S.Mohite Advocate for the Applicant

¶9

Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.Sandeep Phatak Advocate for the Original Complainant.

¶11

CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY

¶12

DATE : 17^th APRIL, 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard Mr.M.S.Mohite, the learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar the learned APP for the State and Mr.Sandeep Phatak, advocate, who was permitted to appear on behalf of the first informant and oppose the application.

¶15

The applicant is one of the accused in C.R.No.739 of 2011 registered at Haveli Police Station, Pune. There are totally ten accused in the said case. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed in the matter.

¶16

avk 1/4

¶17

BA-451-2012

¶18

The allegation against the applicant and the other accused is that on account of some previous quarrel that had taken place between the parties, the applicant and the other accused assaulted one Bharat and one Dynaneshwar, by weapons like sickle, axe, rods, sticks etc. The said Bharat and the said Dnyaneshwar, both sustained injuries. Bharat succumbed to the injuries.

¶19

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the copy of the charge sheet that is annexed to the application.

¶20

Mr.Mohite submitted that only an omnibus and general role in the alleged incident has been attributed to the present applicant. He submitted that the applicant is aged about 65 years. He also submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased Bharat and the said Dnyaneshwar, there was clearly a possibility of over implication. He also submitted that no weapon, allegedly used by the applicant in the assault, has been recovered in the course of investigation.

¶21

A perusal of the statements recorded during investigation, as also the First Information Report (FIR), indicates that the role attributed to the applicant is that he and four or five of the other accused were assaulting Bharat and Dynaneshwar both, by sticks and iron rods. There is no specific allegation as to which of the accused was assaulting which particular victim and the nature of the assault i.e. the part of body on which the blows were given etc. Undoubtedly, the witnesses are consistent in this general version, but there is substance

¶22

avk 2/4

¶23

BA-451-2012

¶24

in the contention of Mr.Mohite, that the number and nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, as reflected from the notes of postmortem examination, does not match with the story of assault by eight to nine persons with weapons such as axe, sickle, iron rods and sticks. I have seen the notes of postmortem examination which show that six injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. Some of them are mentioned as abrasions and are of extremely minor nature. The injuries which could be caused by any hard and blunt object are found only at Serial Nos.5 and 6 in Column No.17 of the notes of postmortem examination.

¶25

Mr.Mohite also submitted that apparently the incident has taken place in front of the house of the applicant. From this, he wanted the court to consider the possibility of the said Bharat and Dnyaneshwar having gone to the locality of the applicant, because of the quarrel that had taken place on the previous day.

¶26

Though no such opinion can be formed on the basis of the material made available to the court, there does appear a clear possibility of over implication, with regard to the nature of assault and even the number of assailants. It is in this context, that only a general and omnibus role is attributed to the applicant and that the weapon, allegedly used by him in the incident has not been recovered, is relevant.

¶27

The applicant’s son has already been arrested in this case and he is in custody.

¶28

avk 3/4

¶29

BA-451-2012

¶30

Considering all the relevant aspects in the matter and as in the ordinary course, the trial cannot be expected to be concluded within a short time, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶31

The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount, with the condition that the applicant shall not enter the local limits of Village Aglambe , for a period of six months from today.

¶32

The court of Sessions shall expedite the trial and endeavour to dispose it of within a period of nine months from today.

¶33

(A.M.THIPSAY, J.)

¶34

avk 4/4

Baban Sopan Parge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Sopan Parge v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Babaji Murlidhar Ugale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bilal Latif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopal S/O Bhaskar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vilas Ramjya @ Ramjan Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Navnath Vasekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Ramjya @ Ramjan Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra