Disposed

Asif Balechand Mulla v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2012BA/538/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to Asif Balechand Mulla, an accused in a Section 307 IPC assault case. The court distinguished him from co-accused who used weapons and allowed bail with a specific condition restricting entry into Vadgaon Police Station limits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in like amount, subject to conditions restricting entry into local police station limits and contact with prosecution witnesses.

Asif Balechand Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

BA-538-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION N0.538 OF 2012

¶5

MR.ASIF BALECHAND MULLA )...APPLICANT V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶6

Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs.S.V.Sonawane APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY DATE : 18^th APRIL, 2012.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr.Kuldeep Patil, the learned advocate for the applicant. Heard Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, the learned APP for the State. I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto.

¶11

2 The applicant is one of the three accused in C.R.No.1 of 2012, registered with Vadgaon Police Station. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Mr.Kuldeep Patil submits that the two other accused had previously made an application for bail, but instead of pressing the same, they chose to withdraw the same. He however avk 1/3

¶12

BA-538-2012

¶13

submitted that the case of the present applicant, for the purposes of bail, is quite distinct from the other two accused, who did not press the application for bail.

¶14

3 Undoubtedly, there is a prima facie case, to the effect that the applicant was accompanying the other accused and also played an active role in the assault. However, apparently the applicant was not armed. The role attributed to him is only of holding the victim Sandeep and of assaulting him by hands.

¶15

4 The applicant did not have any independent motive for assaulting the said Sandeep. The said motive is attributed to the coaccused Chandrakant Yadav.

¶16

5 Since the other two accused have allegedly used weapon in the assault and since the present applicant is not alleged to have done so, the case of the applicant can be treated differently from the case of the coaccused for the purposes of bail.

¶17

There are no antecedents.

¶18

6 Mr.Kuldeep Patil submits that if released on bail, the applicant would be ready to abide by a condition that he shall not enter into the local limits of Vadgaon Police Station, District Kolhapur.

¶19

7 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to grant an opportunity of availing of liberty to the applicant.

¶20

avk 2/3

¶21

BA-538-2012

¶22

8 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the sum of Rs.30,000/, with one surety in like amount, on following conditions :

¶23

1. The applicant shall not enter the local limits of Vadgaon Police Station, except with the previous permission of the Investigating Officer or the court, till the disposal of the case against him.

¶24

1. The applicant shall not contact or approach, any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever.

¶25

(A.M.THIPSAY, J.)

¶26

avk 3/3

Asif Balechand Mulla v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Balechand Mulla 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

Vilas Ramjya @ Ramjan Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Navnath Vasekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban Sopan Parge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhahmadev Rama Metkari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Prabhu Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhahmadev Rama Metkari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra