Allowed

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC22 Feb 2013APPLN/538/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed an ad-interim direction granting anticipatory bail to accused persons charged under Sections 436, 201, and 34 IPC for destruction of school records. The court held that the prosecution failed to justify custodial interrogation due to lack of suspect details and identity parade.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim direction for anticipatory bail is confirmed; applicants released on bail if arrested upon executing P.R. Bond with conditions.

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra538.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2013

¶6

`1) Shankar s/o Sakharam Garde,`
`Age-40 years, Occu:Agriculture,` `R/o-Undri, Tq-Kaij,` `Dist-Beed,`
`2) Krishna s/o Janak Thombre,` `Age-Major, Occu:Agriculture,` `R/o-As above.` `...APPLICANTS`
`VERSUS`
`1) The State of Maharashtra,` `Through Investigation Officer,` `Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station,` `Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed,`
`2) The Superintendent of Police,` `Beed, Dist-Beed.` `...RESPONDENTS`
`...` `Shri.S.S. Ambad Advocate for Applicants.` `Shri.G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondents.` `...`
`CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.`
`DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2013`

¶7

cra538.13

¶8

¶9

ORAL ORDER :

¶10

1. By this Application the Applicants/accused,
apprehending arrest in Crime No.117 of 2012
registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station, Tq-
Kaij, Dist-Beed, for the offence under Sections
436, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have
prayed for direction under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

2.The said offence was registered upon a
complaint lodged by head master of Siddhivinayak
High School, Kumbhephal, regarding an incident of
commission of mischief by fire, resulting into the
destruction of school record.

¶12

3.Ad-interim direction under Section 438 of

¶13

the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued on 1st
February, 2013 for the reasons recorded in the
said order.

¶14

cra538.13

¶15

¶16

4.The prosecution in response to the notice

¶17

issued, has filed the reply. The perusal of reply
does not reveal any reason necessitating custodial
interrogation of the Applicants or any other
circumstances for not confirming the direction

¶18

already given. The same is apparent as clue
regarding the culprits was received from the
statement of peon which was recorded during the
course of investigation. The perusal of the said

¶19

statement reveals that two unknown persons to the
said witness, accompanying with former head master
of the school had come to the school by covering

¶20

their faces. His statement does not give the
necessary details revealing the identity of the
said culprits or the details about their
description. Admittedly no identification parade

¶21

has been conducted and further more it appears

¶22

that while recording the supplementary statement
of the said witness, the Applicants are shown to

¶23

him. In this circumstances, the prayer for

¶24

anticipatory bail made by them deserves

¶25

cra538.13

¶26

¶27

consideration, as non grant of same is not going
to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
Hence the order:

¶28

5.Ad-interim direction given earlier is

¶29

hereby confirmed. The Investigating Officer of
Crime No.117 of 2012 registered with Yusuf Wadgaon
Police Station, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed is directed
that in event of arrest of the Applicants in
connection with said crime, they shall be
forthwith released on bail, upon each of them
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or
more sureties in the like amount and subject to
the conditions that the Applicants:

¶30

(i) shall attend the Investigating Officer as and
when called in connection with investigation of
said crime.

¶31

(ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the

¶32

cra538.13

¶33

¶34

Application and shall not change the same without
permission of the Court.

¶35

(iii) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the accusation
levelled against them so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Investigating
Officer.

¶36

(iv) shall not misuse the order of this Court
either for fleeing away or for committing any

¶37

other offence.

¶38

6.The Application stands disposed of.

¶39

 [P.D. KODE,J.]

¶40

asb/FEB13

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. 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

Sampat Abasaheb Gavte Vs the State of Mah

Shaikh Riyaj Shaikh Masum Vs State of Mah

Udhav Vitthalrao Padgilwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar Pandurang Chaudhari Vs the State of Mah

Pandurang Kashiba Divase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vajir Esak Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra