Dismissed

Sambhaji Tanaji Fonde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014ABA/1531/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail application. Despite arguments regarding false implication and lack of specific injury matches, the court found prima facie evidence of a common object to murder via a weapon, making bail inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application stands rejected; the applicant is to remain in custody for investigation.

Sambhaji Tanaji Fonde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ABA 1531-14.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1531 OF 2014

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶6

Mr.U.R.Mankapure, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶7

P.C.

¶8

. Heard.

¶9

The application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.223 of 2014 registered with the Kavathe Mahankal Police Station, District – Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144,147, 148, 323, 326, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime in question was registered upon FIR lodged by the victim Mr.Tanaji Bapu Takale regarding an incident which had occurred on 30.10.2014 at

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

ABA 1531-14.odt

¶12

about 12:00 noon in which on the count of field leveling, the members of an unlawful assembly inclusive all the applicants had assaulted him with an object of committing his murder. The reference to the FIR reveals that

¶13

the applicant No.1 was armed with the Axe & the applicant No.2 was armed with the stick. Report reveals that all of them assaulted the victim in prosecution of above stated common object of unlawful assembly.

¶14

Mr.Mankapure, learned counsel for the

¶15

applicant has pressed for pre-arrest bail on the count that the Injury Certificate annexed by him along with the application does not reveal that the injuries sustained by the victim can be said to have been caused by means of the Axe. It is urged that all the applicants have been falsely implicated due to

¶16

political motive. It is submitted that the applicant Nos.3 and 4 were not even armed with

¶17

the weapons. It is urged that four more accused are already released on bail and as

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

ABA 1531-14.odt

¶20

such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants and hence

¶21

their prayer for pre-arrest bail be accepted.

¶22

A perusal of the FIR and particularly, the user of the Axe by the applicant No.1

¶23

prima facie support the common object of the

¶24

unlawful assembly being to commit murder of

¶25

the victim. Even accepting the fact that the

¶26

applicant Nos.3 & 4 were not armed with the

¶27

weapons, their act of assaulting the victim

¶28

when they were accompanying the other accused

¶29

who were armed with weapons like axe and stick and were assaulting the victim on the head and

¶30

back clearly denote that their case will be

¶31

covered under part II of Section 149 of the

¶32

Indian Penal Code i.e. they were knowing the offences which were likely to be committed in

¶33

prosecution of the common object of unlawful

¶34

assembly. Having regard to it and further

¶35

having regard to the fact that the report

¶36

reveals that the assault has come to an end

¶37

due to other people having approached the spot

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

ABA 1531-14.odt

¶40

and not due to the applicants and other associates intending to give solitary blow to the victim. The order passed by the Court of Sessions reveals that the Axe is yet to be recovered and so also the other evidence of the said crime is in the shape of blood

¶41

stained clothes of the applicants. Further

¶42

more considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the same being upon bony part, it is difficult to accept that the injuries as sustained by the victim are not possible by weapon like Axe. Thus, considering the manner in which the crime was committed, the investigation regarding relevant facet could not be completed but the for custody of the applicant, it is difficult to accede that the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

¶43

Resultantly, the Anticipatory Bail

¶44

Application stands rejected.

¶45

(P.D.KODE, J.)

¶46

Page 4 of 4

Sambhaji Tanaji Fonde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Tanaji Fonde 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samadhan Manohar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nityanand Madhav Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fulsingh Shankar Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Milind Harishchandra Chavan Vs Manasi Milind Chavan

Majoj Narayan Ingawale Vs Bina Manoj Ingawale and Anr.

Shri.Vasimkhan Jamil Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra