Dismissed

Ganesh Yogesh Kate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014BA/1324/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against bail order. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the bail application of an accused facing assault and grievous hurt charges, noting his criminal history and hostile group affiliation.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected. Liberty granted to move fresh application after six months.

Ganesh Yogesh Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

ba.1324.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1324 OF 2014

Ganesh Y. Kate

... Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶9

Mr.M.A. Patil for the Applicant Mr.S.H. Yadav, APP, for Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The application is moved for bail as the applicant is facing charges under section 307, 341, 336, 337, 323, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. One Urmila Sawant, the mother of the injured, had given information to the police about the incident of assault and pursuant to which C.R. No.28 of 2014 was registered at Shahupuri police station, Kolhapur on 21.1.2014. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured Harihar was in the group of one Ladya Patkare, who was having inimical relations with the applicant/accused Ganesh. There were constant disputes and quarrels between these two groups. Prior to the incident, the applicant/accused tore and damaged the seat of his motor cycle of the injured and thereafter, the informant alongwith her son Harihar had been to the Shahupuri police station and gave information against the applicant/accused. The offence

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

ba.1324.2014.doc

¶16

was registered against him. Thereafter, on 19.1.2014, at around 00.30 hours, when the informant heard shouts, she came out and saw that the applicant/accused alongwith the co accused were assaulting her son near a public toilet. The applicant/accused was holding a gupti and other two accused were holding beer bottles. They assaulted Harihar with the gupti on his forehead and the other accused also inflicted head and face injuries on the person of Harihar. The mother and her daughter intervened and took Harihar away. He was admitted in the hospital and thereafter she lodged the FIR against the applicant.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that all the injuries sustained by Harihar are simple in nature except the one which was grievous was inflicted by co-accused Aslam, who was released on bail. The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the injuries sustained by Harihar, this cannot be a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the applicant/accused is arrested on 29.1.2014 and since then, he is in custody. In view of the medical evidence and evidence on the point of assault, the applicant/accused be released on bail. He submitted that the other two co-accused were also released on bail and he, therefore, prays bail on parity.

¶18

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. He submitted that the Investigating Officer is not present. However, he relied on the reasons

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

ba.1324.2014.doc

¶21

given in the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kolhapur on 30.5.2014. He further submitted that the applicant/accused is having criminal record as 7 cases are pending against him and some of them pertain to offences against human body.

¶22

Perused the FIR. Considered the submissions made by both the parties. Perused the order passed by the Sessions Court. The statements of the witnesses and the FIR disclose, prima facie, that the applicant/accused was present at the time of the incident and has played a specific role in assault. Out of the 7 injuries sustained by the injured, one injury is grievous. However, all the injuries inflicted by the assailants were on the head and the face of the injured. The applicant/accused stays in the same locality and he is a leader of a group, which is hostile to the group of the injured. As the record shows that 7 cases are registered against the accused and some of them are about the offences against human body, i.e., of the similar nature, I am not inclined to grant bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the application is rejected, however, liberty is granted

¶24

to the applicant to move a fresh application after six months.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

3 / 3

Ganesh Yogesh Kate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Yogesh Kate 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

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashokkk Govind Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Krishnath Ambekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Namdeo Ghodake Vs the State of Maharashtra