Allowed

Ajit Pandurang Powar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Oct 2015BA/1765/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed a bail application filed by Ajit Pandurang Powar in connection with a cross-offence arising from an incident involving alleged assault and affray. An error regarding the charge-sheet filing status was noted and corrected before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a PR bond and complying with weapons, regular reporting, and non-interference conditions.

Ajit Pandurang Powar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

BA 1765-15.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1765 OF 2015

¶5

Ajit Pandurang Powar

¶6

.Applicant

¶7

v/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶9

Mr.C.G.Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.S.S.Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM:REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE :20.10.2015

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.Heard learned counsel for the applicant
and the learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶13

2.By this application, the applicant

¶14

seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with

¶15

C.R.No.81 of 2015 registered with the Juna
Rajwada Police Station, Kolhapur, for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 307,
323, 504 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

1 of 8

¶17

BA 1765-15.doc

¶18

3.At the outset, it would be pertinent to

¶19

note, that P.I. - Pandurang Tukaram Patil, Juna

¶20

Rajwada Police Station, Kolhapur had made an
incorrect statement on 12.10.2015 that
charge-sheet has been filed. In view of the
statement made by P.I. - Patil, learned counsel
for the applicant did not press the application

¶21

and sought leave to withdraw the said
application, with liberty to approach the trial
Court. Accordingly, on 12.10.2015, an oral order
was passed recording the same and disposing of
the application. However, before the said order

¶22

could be signed, learned counsel for the
applicant mentioned the matter and pointed out
to this Court that the said statement made by

¶23

P.I. - Patil was incorrect and that no
charge-sheet has been filed. The said statement

¶24

made by the learned counsel for the applicant
was not disputed by the learned APP and hence,

¶25

the matter was kept today. The oral order which

¶26

2 of 8

¶27

BA 1765-15.doc

¶28

was passed on 12.10.2015 stands re-called, in

¶29

view of the incorrect statement made by P.I. -
Patil.

¶30

4.The incident in question has taken

¶31

place on 20.04.2015 at about 11.00 p.m.. It is
alleged by the complainant – Suraj Hanmantrao
Sakhare that he had gone to watch the procession
of “Shiv Jayanti” along with his three friends.

¶32

It is alleged that the applicant along with his
three friends i.e. Rohan Powar, Subhash Zambare
and Vishal Shiralkar came near the complainant
and his three friends. According to the
complainant, the applicant was carrying a sword
as well as a weapon like a revolver, which he
gave to Subhash Zambare and asked him to kill
the complainant. It is alleged by the
complainant, that Subhash Zambare pointed the
revolver at him, but did not fire any bullet. It
is alleged by the complainant that when he and

¶33

3 of 8

¶34

BA 1765-15.doc

¶35

his three friends tried to escape, Rohan Powar
and Vishal Shiralkar held him and the applicant
assaulted him on his forehead and nose by sword
and Rohan Powar and Vishal Shiralkar are alleged
to have assaulted him by fist and kick blows. It

¶36

is alleged that after the said assault, the
applicant and other co-accused fled from the
spot.

¶37

5. Learned counsel for the applicant

¶38

submitted that with respect to the same incident
dated 20.04.2015, the applicant has also lodged

¶39

a complaint as against Suraj Hanmantrao
Sakhare(complainant in the aforesaid C.R.),
which was registered vide C.R.No.80 of 2015 with

¶40

the same police station, for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code. He submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the said case. According
to the learned counsel for the applicant, the

¶41

4 of 8

¶42

BA 1765-15.doc

¶43

applicant was an office bearer of the Shiv
Jayanti Committee and hence was present in the
said procession, when the complainant and others

¶44

came to the spot and assaulted the applicant and
others. He submitted that in the said incident,

¶45

the applicant has received injuries on his head,
right eye suturing outside for CLW (2 x 3 cms)
and swelling over his Right Cheek/Infra Orbital

¶46

region. He submits that one Kedar Gandhi has

¶47

also received an injury inasmuch as, he has
sustained fracture of his right distal end
radium and right lunate of wrist.

¶48

application. Today, P.I. - Patil is present in

¶49

Court. Learned APP on the instructions of P.I. -

¶50

Patil states that he had made an incorrect

¶51

statement on 12.10.2015, as he was confused. She

¶52

states that charge-sheet was filed not in the
present C.R. but in C.R.No.80 of 2015, lodged by

¶53

5 of 8

¶54

BA 1765-15.doc

¶55

the applicant. Both, the investigating officer
and the learned APP do not dispute the fact that
the statement that was made on 12.10.2015, was
an incorrect statement.

¶56

7.Perused the papers including the FIR,
lodged by the applicant which was registered
vide C.R.No.80 of 2015 and by the complainant
which was registered vide C.R.No.81 of 2015.

¶57

Perused the Injury Certificate of the
complainant Suraj Hanmantrao Sakhare in
C.R.No.81 of 2015 and the Injury Certificates of
the applicant and Kedar Gandhi. All of them have
sustained injuries. There are cross cases filed
by both the parties with respect to the same
incident. It appears that there is some
political rivalry between the parties.

¶58

8.Considering the nature of allegations

¶59

and the fact that the applicant has been in

¶60

6 of 8

¶61

BA 1765-15.doc

¶62

custody from 17.08.2015, the applicant is
enlarged on bail on the following terms &

¶63

conditions:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on

¶66

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶67

(ii) The applicant shall attend the Juna
Rajwada Police Station, Kolhapur on every
Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. till
the filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter,
on the 1st Saturday of every month between 11:00
a.m. to 11:00 a.m. for a period of 12 months

¶68

from the date of filing of the charge-sheet;

¶69

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper or
attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶70

(iv) The applicant shall inform his latest

¶71

place of residence and mobile contact number
immediately after being released and/or

¶72

7 of 8

¶73

BA 1765-15.doc

¶74

change of residence or mobile details, if any,

¶75

from time to time to the Court seized of the
matter and to the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station;

¶76

(v) The applicant to cooperate with the

¶77

conduct of the trial.

¶78

9.The Application is allowed in the

¶79

aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶80

10. It is made clear that the observations

¶81

made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in

¶82

accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.

¶83

All concerned to act on the

¶84

authenticated copy of this order.

¶85

 (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶86

8 of 8

Ajit Pandurang Powar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Pandurang Powar 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

Suryakumar Deraiswami Shivsagaran Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishal Sunil Kokare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Ansar S/O Yahya Siddiqui and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Samani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh S/O. Jwalaprasad Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ujit Gangai Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra