Partly allowed

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2014ABA/1394/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application wherein applicant No.1 was denied bail following a sword assault, while applicant No.2 was granted bail subject to specific investigation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected for applicant No.1; allowed for applicant No.2 with bail Rs.20,000 and condition to attend police station daily between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. for 10 days.

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Ingale 1/3 10.BA.1394.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1394 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and another .. Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent State. Mr.Somnath V.Lande, API.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 18^th NOVEMBER, 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Mr.A.P.Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. Heard Mrs.M.R.Tidke, learned APP for the State. I have gone through the application, and annextures thereto. I have gone through the papers of investigation that have been produced by the investigating officer. I have also gone through the report submitted by the police to the Additional Public Prosecutor, which has been made available by the Additional Public Prosecutor for my perusal.

¶12

It is contended by Mr.A.P.Mundargi, the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that in any case, there would be no question of an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC.

¶13

Ingale 2/3 10.BA.1394.14

¶14

I have examined the medical certificates in respect of the injuries sustained by the First Informant, Raju. I find, he had sustained three incised on his hand. The injuries noticed are consistent with the version of the First Informant being assaulted by a sword.

¶15

Under these circumstances, though whether the offence allegedly committed by the applicants and others, would amount to an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, would be debatable. Prima facie, applicant No.1, Sunny, appears to have used a sword and committed a nonbailable offence. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to him.

¶16

So far as the applicant No.2, Shiva Devidas Ahiwale is concerned, the role attributed to him is comparatively minor. His detention in custody and custodial interrogation does not seem to be essential from the point of view of investigation. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him, subject to certain conditions.

¶17

6. The application is partly allowed.

¶18

The application, so far as it relates to applicant No.1, Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale, is rejected.

¶19

The application, so far as it relates to applicant No.2 Shiva Devidas Ahiwale, is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the

¶20

Ingale 3/3 10.BA.1394.14

¶21

applicant No.2, Shiva be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in like amount, on the condition that he shall attend the concerned police station and make himself available for investigation/ interrogation, every day between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., for a period of 10 days, commencing from 20/11/2014, and even thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶22

Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. 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

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prakash Babu Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vanita Sudhir Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Priyesh Bheda I.R.S. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade Vs Meena Sangram Ghorpade Anda N