Dismissed

Kakaso Sambhaji Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jul 2014ABA/963/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected an anticipatory bail application in a dispute over assault and battery. Despite allegations of mutual hostility and prior false complaints, the Court found evidence of fractures and injuries to support the FIR, ruling that the incident was pre-determined and bail was not warranted at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; applicants not granted pre-arrest bail.

Kakaso Sambhaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.963.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.963 OF 2014

¶5

Kakaso Sambhaji Patil 2) Pandurang Sambhaji Patil 3) Vinit Pandurang Patil ... Applicants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Prakash Naik for the Applicants Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: JULY 25, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 397 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the informant that there was a dispute between her family and the family of the applicants/accused who are their neighbours. On 22.5.2014, in the morning at around 10.30am, the informant and her sister-in-law Vanita were removing grass in the courtyard of their house. At that time, the applicants/accused alongwith the co-accused arrived there with wooden logs and sticks. They told them that the said grass belonged to them and thereafter, they started beating her. Then, her sister came to rescue of the informant and the applicants/accused and others started hitting her with

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

aba.963.2014.doc

¶15

sticks and wooden logs. They took away mangalsutras of both the ladies and their sarees got removed. They started screaming and on seeing their relatives coming to helping her, the applicants/accused and the coaccused ran away. The informant and her sister-in-law were admitted to the hospital, where they were treated. They had sustained fractures.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that earlier, Sadhana, the wife of one of the accused, was assaulted in January, 2014 by the informant and the injured witness. Therefore, an FIR at C.R. No.8 of 2014 was registered at Ajra police station, Kolhapur, against the two ladies for the offences under sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 4 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the trial Court has accepted the defence of alibi of other 4 co-accused. Under such circumstances, the FIR, prima facie is exaggerated and false. He submitted that no custody of the applicants/accused is required and hence, they be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. She relied on the statement of the witnesses. She relied on the injury certificates of the informant and other witnesses. She has submitted that in fact section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be attracted in view of the injuries sustained by the informant at the hands of the applicants/accused and

2 / 3

aba.963.2014.doc

others.

Perused the statements, the FIR and the documents produced by the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused. The injury certificates of both the ladies disclose that they have suffered fractures. The names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR. It is true that there is hostility between the two families and earlier a complaint was lodged against the informant and the injured lady. However, in view of the injury certificates and the contents in the complaint, it cannot be said that the incident has not taken place. Prima facie , it appears that the incident of assault has taken place. The applicants/accused have assaulted the two ladies. The assault is pre-determined. Therefore, I am not inclined to use my discretion to grant this application.

¶22

Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶23

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶24

3 / 3

Kakaso Sambhaji Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakaso Sambhaji Patil 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

Asif Babalal Shaikh and Ors. Vs Shakila Asif Shaikh and Ors.

Income Tax Department (a-Ii Ward, Bombay) Vs Derkumar Agarwal and Anr.

Chidi Anthony Uzoukwu Vs Union of India and Anr.

Tushar Devidas Bendre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tushar Devidas Bendre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Sridhar Sakpal Vs the State of Maharashtra