Allowed

Premjit Bhikji Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jun 2013BA/665/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of assault. The judge accepted the argument of vague overt acts attributed to the applicant and the presence of family members as factors justifying the exercise of discretion to release him on bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail in Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, ordered to report to Hatkanangle police station.

Premjit Bhikji Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/2 (5)BA-665-13

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2013

¶6

Premjit Bhikaji Gurav	...	Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra	...	Respondent

¶7

Mr.Kedar J. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATED : JUNE 14, 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 Heard Mr.Kedar J. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.S.D. Shinde, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the Bail Application, and the annexures thereto.

¶12

2 The First Information Report has been lodged by Ravindra Kondekar, who is an eye witness to the incident. He has named the applicant as one of the assailants.

¶13

3 The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He pointed out that the deceased Amit was having three injuries on his body, as is revealed by the post mortem examination, and that all these three injuries are attributed to three of the accused i.e. Dilip Mane, Balu Patade and Sachin Patade. The motive behind the

¶14

2/2 (5)BA-665-13

¶15

assault was available to Dilip Mane. He submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant, and even the other accused, except the three mentioned above.

¶16

4 The learned APP pointed out that the applicant is alleged to have come along with the other accused who were armed. She therefore, submitted that the applicant can be said to have shared the common intention with the other accused who are the actual assailants.

¶17

5 Undoubtedly, there is substance in the contention advanced by the learned APP. However, since an extremely vague overt act is attributed to the present applicant, and since I find that his mother and other members of his family are present in the Court – which can be taken as an indication of the applicant having family ties, rendering it less likely to lead a life of crime or abscond – I am inclined to exercise the discretion of this Court in the matter of bail in favour of the applicant.

¶18

6 The applicant is in custody since 9 August 2012. I am informed that a charge has not yet been framed in the matter.

¶19

7 Application is allowed.

¶20

8 Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount, on the condition to report to the Hatkanangle police station, Ichalkaranji, Dist.Kolhapur, till the disposal of the case against him.

¶21

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Premjit Bhikji Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premjit Bhikji Gurav 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

Lata Sambhaji Donde and Anr. Vs Chandbi Akbar Pathan and Ors.

Nandi Engineering Ltd. and Ors. Vs Yeshwant Gangadhar Patwardhan and Anr.

Kanaiyalal Jasraj Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Phulchand Dhiwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharda Polysolours Private Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tag Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Edge Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.