Dismissed

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014ABA/1023/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the applicants, charged with offences under the IPC and Mumbai Police Act for an assault on agricultural land, sought protection. While counsel argued some co-accused were not present, the Single Judge noted serious injuries sustained by the informant and rejected the application for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; bail not granted.

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

902 aba 1023 of 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2014

¶4

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav

¶5

Raju Kashappa Jadhav,

¶6

bashir Fardeen @ Farid Pirjade Applicants. V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 12^th September, 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The applicants accused are facing

¶13

charges under Sections 307, 324, 504, 143,

¶14

147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and

¶15

section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act. One

¶16

Shivanand Jadhav, 18 year old boy is informant

¶17

in respect of assault pursuant to which

¶18

offence was registered at C.R.No.166 of 2014

¶19

at Valsang Police Station, District: Solapur.

¶20

It is the case of the informant that there is

¶21

dispute between the family of informant and

¶22

Page No.1 of 4

¶23

902 aba 1023 of 2014

¶24

his brother Ambadas in respect of agricultural

¶25

land. On 10.4.2014, there was quarrel between

¶26

the family members of both families. On 12.4.2014, the complainant alongwith his family members including female members went to the agricultural land of the applicant

¶27

accused to question them about the quarrel of 10.4.2014, the applicants accused and co-

¶28

accused who were armed with weapon assaulted the the complainant and other injured. Hence report has been given.

¶29

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶30

has submitted that the applicants accused were

¶31

granted interim bail and they were arrested

¶32

and released on bail. He further submits that

¶33

in the remand report dated 22^nd April, 2011,

¶34

the Investigating Officer has mentioned that

¶35

the co-accused No.3, 4, 6 who were arrested

¶36

made statement that they have committed

¶37

offence and they have assaulted the informant and his family members and present applicant

¶38

Page No.2 of 4

¶39

902 aba 1023 of 2014

¶40

Nos 1, 2 and 5 were not present at the time of

¶41

incident. The learned counsel for the

¶42

applicants accused relied upon the affidavit filed by the injured one Anand Sukhdeo Jadhav and Devanand Kashappa Jadhav that at the time

¶43

of assault the applicants accused were not

¶44

present. The injured were assaulted by the accused Nos 3, 4 and 6 and not by accused Nos

¶45

1, 2 and 5. He submitted that in view of these circumstances and the affidavits of two injured, applicants can be granted

¶46

anticipatory bail.

¶47

The learned APP opposed the

¶48

application. She submitted that amongst the

¶49

injured, Shivanand Kashappa Jadhav has sustained maximum injuries. There are incise

¶50

wounds. He has also suffered fractures. He was

¶51

seriously injured. He has not filed any affidavit, but he has stated about role played

¶52

by these applicants. She relied on the statement of Shivanand and others and

¶53

Page No.3 of 4

¶54

902 aba 1023 of 2014

¶55

submitted though the present applicants are released on interim bail, that cannot be confirmed especially when the injury certificate of Shivanand and others disclose that all injured were assaulted and sustained serious injured. Shivanand has not filed any affidavit though other two injured have filed affidavit, it does not mean that all the three persons were not present at the time of offence. At this stage, the Court has to

¶56

consider statements of other witnesses who have mentioned that all these persons were

¶57

present. In view of this fact and considering the injury certificates of the witnesses and

¶58

informant, I am not inclined to grant

¶59

anticipatory bail. Application is rejected.

¶60

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶61

Page No.4 of 4

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. 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

Bhaskar Suryabhan Nandurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Pandurang Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra