Partly allowed

Bapurao Suresh Shendge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014ABA/784/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail for one applicant but granted it to two others in a case involving aggravated assault and robbery, imposing strict conditions to ensure investigation and prevent tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for Shri Bapurao Shendge. Granted to Shri Atul Shendge and Shri Yuvraj Shendge on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.20,000/each along with sureties and compliance with reporting co

Bapurao Suresh Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.784.2014+.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.784 OF 2014 a/w

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Bapurao Suresh Shendge ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent And Kalyan Chandrakant Dhaygude … Intervener

¶7

a/w ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2014 a/w

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.434 OF 2014

¶9

Shri Atul @ Ramhari Ravindra @ Ashok Shendge ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent And Kalyan Chandrakant Dhaygude … Intervener

¶10

a/w ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.786 OF 2014 a/w

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.436 OF 2014

¶12

Shri Yuvraj Bapurao Shendge ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent And Kalyan Chandrakant Dhaygude … Intervener

¶13

Mr.A.A. Karande for the Applicant in all ABAs

¶14

Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State in ABA/784/2014 and ABA/786/2014

¶15

Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for State in ABA/785/2014

¶16

Mr.S.S. Kulkarni for Intervener in APPP Nos.435/2014, 434/2014 & 436/2014

¶17

1 / 5

¶18

aba.784.2014+.doc

¶19

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶20

DATE: JULY 8, 2014

¶21

P.C.:

¶22

One Kalyan Chandrakant Dhaygude is the complainant, who has lodged the FIR against the applicants in all these Anticipatory Bail Applications pursuant to which the crime is registered at C.R. No.138 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 394 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant that earlier, an incident of assault has taken place on 28.4.2014 at around 7.40pm. Prior to this, his brother Laxman had ran away with his cousin sister of Yuvraj and got married. The family did not approve of this and therefore there was previous enmity between the families. On 28.4.2014, the informant went to the petrol pump to fill up diesel at village Bigwan. At that time, the applicants/accused arrived there in a Scorpio jeep. All the three applicants/accused alighted from the vehicle. They were armed with sticks and iron rods. They questioned him about the marriage of his brother and then assaulted him with sticks and iron rods. He fell down. He was injured. They took his cell phone and also wallet consisting of Rs.5,500/- and ran away in the vehicle. His brother arrived at the spot and found him injured. Thereafter he took him to the Bigwan police chowky and from there they got medical yaadi and went to one Thorat hospital and after some first aid was given to him, he was advised to go to Baramati as

¶23

2 / 5

¶24

aba.784.2014+.doc

¶25

the injuries were serious. On 30.4.2014, he went to hospital at Baramati and he was treated there in ICU.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent. The manner in which the incident has taken place, as stated, is not correct. The complainant has not received serious grievous injuries, as is contended. He was not admitted in hospital on 29.4.2014. Though he was advised to take treatment from Baramati by Dr.Thorat on 28.4.2014. He submitted that there is no head injury to the complainant but the injuries are on his back and on the limbs. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the police if at all they are protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She submitted that the complainant has received injuries on his right cheek, chest and on the back. She relied on the injuries certificates. She further submitted that the applicant/accused Bapurao has threatened the complainant when he was granted interim bail by the Sessions Court. She relied on the N.C. Complaint registered at 551 of 2014 with the Daund police station for the offences under sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Perused the complaint, the injury certificates. Prima facie, the complaint discloses that the offence has taken place. There was previous

¶29

3 / 5

¶30

aba.784.2014+.doc

¶31

enmity between the families. There is no injury on the head of the complainant as per the injury certificates.

¶32

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused and the learned Prosecutor, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Shri Bapurao Suresh Shendge and accordingly, Anticipatory Bail Application No.784 of 2014 is rejected.

¶33

However, the applications of Atul @ Ramhari Ravindra @ Ashok Shendge and Yuvraj Bapurao Shendge are allowed and they are granted pre-arrest bail as under:

¶34

i) In the event of arrest, the applicants viz., Atul @ Ramhari Ravindra @ Ashok Shendge and Yuvraj Bapurao Shendge be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/each, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶35

ii) The said applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or shall not pressurise the complainant;

¶36

iii) The said applicants shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail;

¶37

iii) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station, twice a week i.e., every Friday and Monday between 6pm to 8pm, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

aba.784.2014+.doc

¶40

iv) Upon non-compliance of any of the above conditions, the prosecution or the complaint is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of the pre-arrest bail.

¶41

All the Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶42

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶43

5 / 5

Bapurao Suresh Shendge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapurao Suresh Shendge 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

Suraj Shivaji Pawar 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

Sajjan Jaywant Awatade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Namdev Ughade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha Vs the State of Maharashtra