Partly allowed

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014ABA/887/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with an anticipatory bail application filed by four accused individuals prosecuted for offences under sections 436, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences relate to assault and setting a complainant's house on fire during a land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to three applicants on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000 each with conditions; bail denied to Satish More.

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.887.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.887 OF 2014

¶5

Prakash Jalindar More

¶6

Bapu Jalindar More

¶7

Satish @ Satyawan Prakash More

¶8

Abasaheb Prakash More … Applicants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶11

Mr.Rahul Motkari for the Applicants in ABA Mr.P.G. Sarda for Applicant/Intervener Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent – State

¶12

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶13

DATE: JULY 18, 2014

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

The application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 436, 323, 504, 506, r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is registered at C.R. No.89 of 2013 at Tembhurni police station, Solapur. It is the case of the prosecution that the dispute in respect of a land is going on between the families of the the complainant and the applicants/accused. On the night of 9.5.2014 at 1am, the applicants/accused came near the house of the complainant. His family members were sleeping outside the house. Then the applicants assaulted the complainant with kicks and fist blows and thereafter the

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

aba.887.2014.doc

¶18

applicant/accused Satish More set the house of the complainant on fire as the roof of the house of the applicant/accused was made of dried grass and thus, the house got burnt alongwith the belongings as also the food grains and other articles and thereby there was an overall loss of Rs.70,000/-.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the applicants/accused are owners of gat No.168 and the complainant is also claiming the said land. The applicants/accused have filed a civil Suit in 2007 and they have obtained an injunction against the complainant in respect of the said land. It is further submitted that due to this dispute, the complainant has created a scene in order to show that he is in possession of the said land and has falsely implicated the applicants/accused. The applicants are innocent and are to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Intervener and the learned Prosecutor

¶21

submitted that the applicants/accused have committed serious offences and their custodial interrogation is required and the complainant is roofless.

¶22

A civil dispute between the parties is going on in respect of the title of the land. However, it is a different issue. On perusal of the complaint

¶23

2 / 3

¶24

aba.887.2014.doc

¶25

and the spot panchanama and also the photographs, there is a prima facie case against the applicants/accused. Perused the injury certificates. A specific role is attributed to applicant/accused Satish More of setting the house on fire and, therefore, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant / accused Satish More. However, the other three applicants/accused are granted pre-arrest bail as under:

¶26

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/each, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶27

ii) The said applicants shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not commit any kind of offence while on bail;

¶28

iii) The applicants shall not threaten or harass the complainant or his family members.

¶29

iv) The said applicants shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station on every Monday and Friday between 6pm to 7pm, till the filing of chargesheet;

¶30

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶32

3 / 3

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Jalindar More 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

Vishnu Waman Bomble Vs Mahadu Rama Bomble and Ors.

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Umashankar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Dattu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Halimabi Hussain Parande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandesh Bhagwan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra