Allowed

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014ABA/943/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application regarding the suicide of Santosh under sections 306, 384, 504, and 506 IPC, the High Court of Bombay allowed bail. The court observed that while the accused committed under Sections 504, 506 and 384 IPC had occurred, the ingredients of Section 107 IPC for anticipatory bail were not fulfilled. Consequently, the application was allowed upon issuance of bond and

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, subject to conditions to not tamper with evidence, not threaten witnesses, and report to police.

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.943.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2014 a/w CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2014 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2014

¶5

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent And Sambhaji Nivrutti Chavan … Intervener

¶6

Mr.V.V. Purwant for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.Sachin Chavan i/b Mr.Devidas J. Jadhav for Intervener

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE: AUGUST 6, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The applicant has moved this application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code as he is facing charges under sections 306, 384, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.107 of 2014. The father of the deceased son has given the report to Akluj police station, Solapur (Rural). It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Santosh was doing the work of Centering and he had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the present applicant/accused, 6 years prior to the incident. On 13.5.2014,

¶11

1 / 4

¶12

aba.943.2014.doc

¶13

the deceased met the applicant/accused and at that time, he told him that he should do the work of his relative at Shambhukhed because his relative has paid him money. At that time, he abused him and took away his motor cycle and mobile. On 14.5.2014, the applicant/accused arrived in his car and threatened the deceased and insisted that he should start the work of his relative at Shambhukhed. He also threatened him that if he would not start the work, he would finish him. Thereafter on 18.5.2014, again the applicant/accused arrived and asked the father of the deceased as to where was the deceased. The informant father lied that the was not there. Then, the deceased was under pressure of the applicant/accused and ultimately, he committed suicide by hanging himself on 19.5.2014. Hence, this case.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant/accused has paid him money. The relative of the applicant has also paid money to the deceased and he was not doing the work and, therefore, he was after him. He submitted that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Learned Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Intervener

¶16

opposed the application. They submitted that the applicant/accused is influential and two cases under section 302 are pending against him. It is

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

aba.943.2014.doc

¶19

submitted that the applicant/accused on 15.6.2014 and thereafter on 30.6.2014, had threatened the complainant that he should withdraw his case. The learned Prosecutor further relied on the diary notes of the deceased holding the applicant responsible for his decision to commit suicide and also relied on the statements of other witnesses.

¶20

Perused the FIR, the diary and also the statements of the witnesses and the affidavit filed by the informant. It appears from the documents that the applicant/accused has given the money to the deceased and he was insisting that he should start work of his relative at Shambhukhed and the deceased was not doing that. Therefore, he threatened him and took away his motor cycle and the cellphone. He was under pressure and committed suicide. Prima facie, though the applicant/accused has committed some other offences under section 504, 506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, I am of the view that the pre arrest bail can be granted to the applicant/accused for want of fulfillment of ingredients of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the application is allowed as under:

¶21

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

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

aba.943.2014.doc

¶24

ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence; iii) The applicant shall not in any manner threaten or contact or the witnesses or the complainant or his family members to withdraw the case;

¶25

iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station every Friday between 4pm to 6pm, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶26

v) In the event of breach of any of the condition as above, the Prosecution will be at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶27

In view of the above, intervention application also stands disposed

¶28

¶29

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

4 / 4

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate 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

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra