Allowed

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014ABA/793/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants accused under Sections 307 and 34 IPC for attempting to kill police guards. The court observed that while one applicant was involved in instigating the attack, custodial interrogation was not justified for the others. Bail was granted with specific conditions regarding court appearances and non-interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants eligible for enlargement on bail upon arrest by furnishing personal and surety bonds under specified conditions of police attendance.

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

15 & 26. ABA793 & 955_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 793 OF 2014

¶5

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap	…	Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 955 OF 2014

¶7

Amol Gangadhar Jadhav & Anr.	…	Applicants
vs.
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶8

Ms Racheeta Rajendra Dhuru, Advocate for the applicant in ABA/793/2014.

¶9

Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicant in ABA/955/2014. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State in both the matters. I.O. Suresh Padavi, A.P.I., Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik present.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 1^st August, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Both these Applications are moved by the applicants/accused for anticipatory bail, as the applicants/accused are facing charges under sections 307, 353 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. I-130 of 2014 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik on 4^th May, 2014.

¶13

One Banudas Ramchandra, Police Head Constable along with other police personnel were attending the duty as Prison Constables on 3^rd May, 2014 at Civil hospital for the protection of prisoner patients, at around 22.45 hours they saw one rickshaw moving suspiciously. There were nearly four persons in the rickshaw. The prisoner guards asked

¶14

1 Of 4

¶15

15 & 26. ABA793 & 955_2014

¶16

them to stop, however, irrespective of their warning, the rickshaw was

¶17

driven in high speed. Therefore, the informant along with his coguards chased the said rickshaw and stopped it. With the intention to kill the informant and other persons, the driver of the rickshaw speedily drove the rickshaw near them. At that time, the informant jumped on other side and saved his life, however, he could catch one person who was sitting on the rear side. The rest of the persons in the rickshaw ran away. They could read only some portion of number plate of the rickshaw. The person who was caught is co-accused no. 1 Vilas Devidas Lonari in the C.R. On his person chilli powder was found. In the course of investigation, they found the names of the applicants/accused and other accused. Thereafter, the offence was registered at the instance of informant on 4^th May, 2014.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that names of Manoj Gangurde and Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap are not mentioned in the FIR, however, their names were added subsequently in the remand report dated 7^th May, 2014. The learned counsel submitted that no role is attributed to Manoj Gangurde and Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap. The learned counsel further submitted that though the name of Amol Gangadhar Jadhav is mentioned in the FIR as a person travelling in the rickshaw, there is no criminal antecedants against him.

¶19

2 Of 4

¶20

15 & 26. ABA793 & 955_2014

¶21

Learned APP opposed the applications. She submitted that this offence is committed by the applicants/accused and co-accused against the police personnel who were attending prison guard duty in Civil Hospital, Nashik. She submitted that all of them are prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 34, 120B and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. She submitted that they tried to kill the police who were on duty by driving the rickshaw in excessive speed on them.

¶22

On perusal of the FIR and remand report, it is found that names of four persons who were travelling in the rickshaw were immediately transpired to the police, as one of them was caught red-handed. The applicant/accused Amol Jadhav prima facie was travelling in the rickshaw, however, he was not driving the said rickshaw. Though it appears that the applicant/accused Amol Jadhav has instigated the driver to drive rickshaw on the prisoner guards, I do not think it is a ground to deny pre-arrest bail to these applicants/accused, as their custodial interrogation is not justified. Moreover, no role is attributed to applicants/accused Nilesh Jagtap and Manoj Gangurde. In view of this, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused

¶25

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap and Manoj Gangurde be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of

¶26

3 Of 4

¶27

15 & 26. ABA793 & 955_2014

¶28

Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount

¶29

and the applicant/accused Amol Gangadhar Jadhav be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount

¶30

(ii) The applicants/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(iii) The applicants/accused - Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap and Manoj Gangurde shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. for one month and the applicant/accused Amol Gangadhar Jadhav shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. for one month and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating officer and shall cooperate the investigating agency.

¶32

It is to be noted that informant Banudas Ramchandra, Police Head Constable and other prisoner guards have courageously and vigilantly acted and caught hold of the accused.

¶33

The Applications stand disposed of.

¶34

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶35

4 Of 4

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap 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

Shrikrishna Khandelwal Vs M/S. S.P. Builders and Ors.

Lallasingh Pawansingh @ Karansingh S/O Gungasingh @ Rameshsingh Tak @ Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Jagdish Khairmode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Azim Raine Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Shambaji Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.