Allowed

Suraj Shivaji Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014ABA/663/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants charged with offences under IPC, including Section 354, involving assault and removal of sari/tearing blouse during a chaotic crowd incident. Conditions were imposed regarding bond, conduct, and police attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail was allowed subject to conditions including furnishing a PR Bond of Rs. 15,000 each with two sureties in the like amount.

Suraj Shivaji Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

15.ABA663_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 663 OF 2014

¶5

Suraj Shivaji Pawar & Ors. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Haribhau Deshinge, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. I.O. Smt. S.S. Sutar, WA.P.I, Vaduj Police Station, Satara present.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 7^th July, 2014.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The Application is moved by the applicants/accused for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr. P.C, as the applicants/accused are charged for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 354(A & C) of the Indian Penal Code, which is registered at C.R. No. 109/2014 with Vaduj Police Station, Satara.

¶10

It is the case of the complainant that on 15^th April, 2014 there was some religious programme in the Goregaon village and some entertaining programme was going on. The people from other villages also gathered to attend the programme. At that time there was chaos and the applicants/accused started abusing the committee members of the village Goregaon. One Ankush Doiphode intervened, so the applicants/accused abused him and assaulted with fist blows and kicks. Mayavati, wife of Ankush Doiphode also intervened with a view to pacify the group. However, the applicants/accused were aggressive and

¶11

1 Of 3

¶12

15.ABA663_2014

¶13

they removed her sari and tore her blouse. By this incident, Ankush, Mayavati and other persons were injured and they were taken to the hospital.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that Section 354 (A & C) and all other sections levelled against the applicants/accused are bailable. He submitted that Section 354(C) is not attracted in view of the contents in the FIR. He further submitted that the applicants/accused have no intention to sexually harass the victim/Mayavati.

¶15

Learned APP opposed the application. She submitted that the names of applicants/accused are specifically mentioned as they have committed the act of removing sari and tearing the blouse of Mayavati Doiphode. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail is not to be allowed.

¶16

As per the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants/accused, Section 354C may not be attracted. It appears from the contents in the FIR that there was a scuffle between applicants/accused and injured persons in the village. The situation was chaotic and Mayavati tried to intervene as her husband was beaten up, at that time, she was also assaulted and

¶17

2 Of 3

¶18

15.ABA663_2014

¶19

manhandled. Her sari got loosen and blouse was torn. In view of the ingredients required under section 354A prima facie I am of the view that applicants/accused can be protected by granting prearrest bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶22

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize the witnesses especially Mayavati and shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge into any kind of criminal activity especially for which they are prosecuted.

¶24

(iv) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. to 12 noon till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate with the Investigating

¶25

agency.

¶26

The Application stands disposed of.

¶27

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

3 Of 3

Suraj Shivaji Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Shivaji Pawar 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

Santosh Tatyaba Ghadage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Ramchandra Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shripati Rama Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Madhav Khajanvadkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep K. Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra