Allowed

Amol Dinkar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Sept 2013BA/1586/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Criminal Jurisdiction) heard an application for bail by an applicant charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code. The court observed evidence gaps and alleged motive behind the FIR, granting bail with specific conditions including appearance at the police station, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application was allowed; the applicant was released on bail upon execution of a P.R. Bond in Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 25,000, subject to appearing in court once a week, cooperati

Amol Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA 1586-13.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2013

¶5

(For Bail)

¶6

Amol Dinkar Patil.Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶9

Mr.J.A.Vithlani, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.G.P.Mulyekar, APP, for the Respondent -
State

¶10

CORAM:U.V.BAKRE, J.
DATE:25TH SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶13

applicant and the learned APP for the
respondent – State.

¶14

registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nasik

¶15

for the offences punishable under Sections 313,

¶16

323, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code has filed the present
application for bail. It is seen that the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

BA 1586-13.odt

¶19

first informant was earlier married and has a

¶20

son by name Master Wasim aged about nine
years. Since last about eight to nine years
she is in contact with the present applicant
and claims that the present applicant had
promised to marry her. It is her case that
she was pregnant of two months and the present
applicant gave her some tablets due to which
the pregnancy was terminated.

¶21

3.There is no evidence for knowing as to
what tablets were given. Admittedly, the
tablets were not forcibly administered to the
first informant. Earlier wife of the

¶22

complainant had lodged a complaint against the

¶23

present applicant which is dated 11th June,
2013, after which the first informant filed a
serious complaint of rape, etc. against the
present applicant which does not appear to be
a genuine complaint. Subsequently, the mother
of the present applicant filed complaint on
22nd July, 2013 against the first informant
after which the first informant filed the

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

BA 1586-13.odt

¶26

present oral report.

¶27

4.Considering the above background, I am
of the view that the applicant is entitled to
bail with certain conditions.

¶28

allowed. The applicant in C.R.No.I-230 of

¶29

2013 shall be released on bail upon execution
of P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
solvent surety in the sum aggregating to
Rs.25,000/- under the following conditions.

¶30

(i)The applicant shall attend Upnagar
Police Station, Nasik once a week i.e. on

¶31

every Monday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m..

¶32

(ii)The applicant shall co-operate with

¶33

investigation.

¶34

(iii)The applicant shall not tamper with

¶35

the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

BA 1586-13.odt

¶38

6. The Criminal Application stands

¶39

disposed of accordingly.

¶40

(U.V.BAKRE, J.)

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Amol Dinkar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Dinkar Patil 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

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Ramdas Jadhav Vs Satish Hari Kulkarni and Anr.

Alexander Nelson D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Ramkishor Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra