Allowed

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013APPLN/1748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under IPC and SC/ST Act. Granted bail subject to bond, attendance, cooperation with investigation, and prohibition from tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail on furnishing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/- each with conditions to attend specific dates, cooperate with police, and not tamper with witnesses.

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

criapln1748-13.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1748/2013

¶5

1] Ranjeet s/o Abhangrao Sawant

¶6

2] Pappu s/o Abhangrao Sawant

¶7

3] Pintu s/o Dnyanoba Sawant V/s

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra

¶9

2] The Superintendent of Police,Latur 3] Pandit s/o Raghunath Suryawanshi

¶10

Shri V.G.Sakolkar,Adv.for applicants Shri D.R.Kale,APP for State Shri D.R.Bhange,Adv.for R.3.

¶11

CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2013.

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

The application is filed for anticipatory bail. Both sides are heard.

¶14

2] Seen copy of FIR given against applicants and copy of FIR given on behalf of applicants. Cross complaints were filed on 18/3/13 and Crime No.28/13 on the basis of report given by side of the applicants and Crime No.29/13 came to be registered against the applicants. Seen the injury certificate in respect of Prashant.

¶15

2 criapln1748-13.odt

¶16

He sustained as many as 7 injuries which were contusions and were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple injuries. The statement of Prashant shows that the main person from the applicant is applicant no.1.

¶17

3] Learned counsel for applicant no.1 submitted that he wants to withdraw the application in respect of applicant no.1. So, application in respect of applicant no.1 Ranjit stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶18

4] There are allegations as against Pappu and Pintu but they are made alongwith allegations which are made against Ranjit. The report shows that the main part was played by Ranjit. In view of the allegations made that Prashant used belt and Pappu used stone, this Court holds that police should not need custody of these 2 applicants for the purpose of investigation. This Court holds that subject to some conditions, relief can be granted to these 2 applicants. There is possibility of exaggeration and there is possibility of false implication.

¶19

5] In view of these circumstances, application of applicant nos.2 and 3 is allowed. In case of arrest of applicants in Crime No.29/13 registered in Deoni police station, Tq. Deoni, Dist.Latur, for offences punishable u/ss. 324, 323, 504, 34 of IPC and u/s 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, they are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/-

¶20

3 criapln1748-13.odt

¶21

each. They are to attend concerned police station on 27/7/13, 28/7/13 , 3/8/13 and 4/8/13 between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. They are to cooperate with police during investigation. They are not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. Shri D.B.Bhange, learned counsel was allowed to assist APP.

¶22

[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶23

umg/

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Kisan@Kishor Raju Chabukswar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivraj Parappa Gunjakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Revsingh Nata Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Sambhaji Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saleha Begum Shaikh Shahid Ahmed@ Saleha Begum Mohammad Sattar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dhannanjay Vishnu Dompe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra