Dismissed

Laxman Joti Jadhav v. the Stat of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Dec 2014ABA/1543/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the FIR and investigation material established significant involvement in an unlawful assembly causing commission of cognizable offences and destruction of property, making in-depth investigation, including custodial interrogation, essential.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected.

Laxman Joti Jadhav Vs the Stat of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ABA 1543-14.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1543 OF 2014

¶5

Laxman Joti Jadhav .Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶8

Mr.T.P.Hilge, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM : P.D.KODE, J. DATE : 5TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard.

¶12

The application for pre-arrest bail is pressed on the count that the applicant is 77 years old and the FIR does not disclose that he was armed with the weapon, cross complaints

¶13

are lodged. The crime in question for commission was registered for the offences

¶14

committed by members of an unlawful assembly in an incident which had occurred on

¶15

24.10.2014 i.e. the offences punishable under

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

ABA 1543-14.odt

¶18

Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 337, 427, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.135 of the Bombay Police Act. The material

¶19

in the FIR considered in proper perspective

¶20

not only reveals that the applicant was not

¶21

only member of unlawful assembly but also the

¶22

reason for occurrence of the incident i.e. the previous quarrel on the count of members of

¶23

opposite party sitting and chitchatting infront of the house of the applicant and thereby causing nuisance. The order passed by the Court of Sessions rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail reveals tangible material being collected during the course of investigation regarding involvement of the applicant. The FIR also reveals that the incident was not confined assaulting members of the rival party but in the said process even the articles in the grocery shop

¶24

of the first informant were destroyed. Merely

¶25

because the cross complaints for the said incident are lodged, would not be a ground for

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

ABA 1543-14.odt

¶28

considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail. In such type of offences, in depth investigation is necessary to ascertain as to whether there was free fight or any of the party was aggressor. Needless to add, all the weapons used for commission of the offences are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary for the said purpose.

¶29

Resultantly, there are no merits in

¶30

the matter. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected.

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Laxman Joti Jadhav v. the Stat of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Joti Jadhav v. the Stat 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

Milind Harishchandra Chavan Vs Manasi Milind Chavan

Majoj Narayan Ingawale Vs Bina Manoj Ingawale and Anr.

Sambhaji Tanaji Fonde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupali Manoj Khairnar Vs Manoj Hiralal Khairnar and Anr.

Arvind Pandalai Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Avez Chiragudin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.