Allowed

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014ABA/1071/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC and other acts, relying on a previous order permitting bail for co-accused and noting absence of grievous injury to police personnel.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on conditions: furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, no tampering with evidence or committing offences, and reporting to police weekly.

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.1071.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1071 OF 2014

¶5

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav ... Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.J.D. Mane for the Applicant Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.R.D. Rathod, Solapur Taluka police station, Solapur – present

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This is an application for pre-rrest bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences under sections 307, 353, 333, 332, 326, 324 143, 147, 148, 149, 225, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act and also under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. It is the case of the prosecution that when the police raided the place where the illicit liquor was being manufactured on 28.8.2009, at that time, the persons who were involved in the said business, damaged the police jeep and started pelting stones on the police. Some police personnel got injured and the police jeep got damaged. The applicant/accused is one of them. Names of nearly 28 accused were taken and 45 accused are chargesheeted. The information was given by the police Havaldar on 28.8.2009.

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

aba.1071.2014.doc

¶15

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that 32 coaccused were granted pre-arrest bail by order dated 17.11.2009 by this Court and some co-accused were arrested and they were also released on bail by the same order. He, therefore, prays for pre-arrest bail on parity.

¶16

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. The Investigating Officer is present. She submitted that a group of people attacked the police when the police wanted to stop the illicit liquor business.

¶17

Perused the FIR. The FIR is of 2009. The record does not show that there was grievous injury caused to the police. In view of the order passed by this Court dated 17.11.2009, I grant pre-arrest bail to the present applicant/accused on the following terms:

¶18

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶19

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

iii) The applicant shall not tamper and not to commit any kind of offence, while on bail;

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

aba.1071.2014.doc

¶23

iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and report to the concerned police station every Friday, between 2pm to 4pm, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶24

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

3 / 3

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav 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

Rakhmaji Parmeshawr Mahadik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Kinchik Bagal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samadhan Mahadeo Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amar Tanaji Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Digambar Shinde (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manisha Balwant Shipugade Vs the State of Maharashtra