Allowed

Hotchand@Hotu Sundardas Bajaj and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Feb 2013APPLN/596/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to six applicants charged with robbery and assault. The order was based on the inconsistency in the First Information Report regarding the date of the incident and previous false complaints lodged by the victim against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties, subject to daily reporting and specific movement restrictions.

Hotchand@Hotu Sundardas Bajaj and Others Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Appln596.13

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2013

¶5

1. Hotchand @ Hatu S/o Sundardas Bajaj Age : 55 years, Occ : Business,

¶6

2. Yogesh S/o Chandardas Bajaj Age : 21 years, Occ : Service,

¶7

3. Hitesh @ Dhabu Chandardas Bajaj Age : Major, Occ :Service,

¶8

4. Soni S/o Sundardas Bajaj Age : 40 years, Occ : Business,

¶9

5. Laxman @ Lachchu Sundardas Bajaj Age : 45 years, Occ : Service,

¶10

6. Bunty S/o Hotchand Bajaj Age : 19 years, Occ : Education,

¶11

7. Sachchu Narayandas Santani (Sangtani), Age : 30 years, Occ : Service,

¶12

All R/o Kumar Nagar, Sakri Road,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

¶13

...APPLICANTS

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dhule City,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

.....

¶18

Mr. P.S. Paranjape, advocate for Applicants.
Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent.

¶19

.....

¶20

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.
 DATE: 26th FEBRUARY, 2013

Cri.Appln596.13

-2-

ORAL ORDER :

1.By this application, the applicants
apprehending arrest in connection with Crime
No. 234/2012 registered with Dhule City Police
Station, Tq. & Dist. Dhule for offence under
Sections 395, 397, 452, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for pre-arrest
bail.

¶25

2.The said offence is registered upon the
First Information Report lodged by one Suresh
Namumal Tolani on 22nd December, 2012 regarding the
incident which has allegedly occurred about four
months back i.e. on 20th August, 2012. It is
alleged that in the said incident, the applicants
armed with weapon such as knife, iron bar, iron
pipe, hockey stick, sticks and stone had trespassed
in the house of first informant and assaulted the
first informant and his sons Akash and Viki. It is
also alleged that during the incident, the
applicant no.6 has forcibly taken away the amount
of Rs. 10,000/- from Akash and while applicant no.2
has snatched away gold ring worth Rs.9,000/- from
Akash.

¶26

3.By inviting attention to the paragraph
no.4 of the first information report, the
learned counsel for the applicants has urged that

¶27

Cri.Appln596.13 -3-

¶28

same contains the recital that on the day of
incident, the first informant and other victims had
been to the Police station and they were referred
to Civil Hospital, Dhule by the Police, direction
was given to the prosecution to produce the Station
Diary entry of the relevant date. The learned
A.P.P. has submitted that there is no such entry in
the Police Station record of the first informant
and the victims having attended the Police Station
on the said date as stated in the first information
report.

¶29

4.Having regard to the said fact and the
reasons assigned in the complaint in lodging the
first information report after about four months
coupled with the submission that the applicant no.1
has earlier lodged the complaint against the first
informant, the submission canvassed that the
applicants are falsely implicated in the said crime
with ulterior motive can not be said to be devoid
of merit. Curiously enough, the say filed by the
prosecution reveals that earlier offence have been
registered against the complainant and his two sons
on 21st August, 2012 for the offence under Sections
394, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code upon the complaint lodged by applicant
no.6. Having regard to the same, it is difficult to
perceive need of custodial interrogation, hence the
prayer for giving direction as prayed deserves
consideration by imposing certain conditions for
achieving balance in between the right of the

¶30

Cri.Appln596.13 -4-

¶31

Investigating Agency to fairly investigate the
matter and right of the applicants of not getting
unnecessarily humiliated due to false accusations
of serious charges being made against them.

¶32

5.Inform the Investigating Officer of the
aforesaid crime that in the event of arrest of
applicants in connection with above referred crime,
they shall be forthwith released on bail upon each
of them furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand) with one or
more sureties to make up the like amount and
subject to the condition that applicants :-

¶33

(i)shall attend the Investigating Officer every
day in between 1.00 p.m. to 2 p.m. for a period of
first week, then thereafter as and when required by
the Investigating Officer.

¶34

(ii)shall stay at the addresses mentioned in the
application and shall not change the same without
the permission of the Court.
(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 him/her
from disclosing such facts to the Investigating
Officer.

¶35

(iv)shall not commit any offence while enjoying

¶36

Cri.Appln596.13

¶37

-5-

¶38

the benefits granted under this order.

¶39

6.The application stands disposed of in the

¶40

above terms.

¶41

[P.D. KODE,J.]

Hotchand@Hotu Sundardas Bajaj and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotchand@Hotu Sundardas Bajaj and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Asaram Pandit and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Satish Vasant Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saukit Fakhira Jawanjal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Guddi@Kavitabai Bapu Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj @ Bablu Rajabhau Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra