Allowed

Sarang S/O. Pandit Sanap and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Apr 2016APPLN/1402/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed a Criminal Appeal (Bail). The Court held that custodial interrogation is not required, seeing the victim was conscious for 26 days without medical history. A previous interim protection was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted on 4th March, 2016 was made absolute.

Sarang S/O. Pandit Sanap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapln1402-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1402 OF 2016

¶5

1. Sarang s/o Pandit Sanap, Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.

¶6

2. Radhabai w/o Sarang Sanap, Age : 32 years, Occu. Household

¶7

3. Suryakanta w/o Pandit Sanap, Age : 63 years, Occu. Household

¶8

All are r/o Anjanwadi, Taluka
Aundha (Nagnath), Dist. HingoliAPPLICANTS
VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Hatta,
District HingoliRESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶11

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 20/04/2016

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

1. Heard both sides.

¶14

2.The present applicants who are apprehending

¶15

their arrest at the hands of Hatta Police Station,

¶16

District Hingoli, in Crime No. 8/2016, registered for

¶17

the offences punishable under section 307, 452, 294,

¶18

504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶19

2 criapln1402-2016

¶20

are praying for their release on bail in the event of
their arrest.

¶21

3.The prosecution papers would show that while
the incident has occurred on 15th December, 2015 and the
victim of the offence namely, Laxmibai was taken to the
Civil Hospital, Nanded upon receiving burn injuries, no
history was recorded by the Medical Officer and the
victim was shifted to private hospital i.e Aadhar
Hospital, Nanded.

¶22

4.Though the incident has occurred on 15th

¶23

December, 2015, her statement was recorded by the

¶24

Special Judicial Magistrate on 11th January, 2016 wherein
she alleged that the present applicants being the
neighbours, had, over a previous dispute, set her on
fire. Therefore, the offence came to be registered.

¶25

5.Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned counsel for the

¶26

applicants, submitted that in fact, after a deliberation
due to previous enmity, the present applicants are
involved in the offence. The prosecution case itself is
that the victim was very well conscious since the

¶27

incident till her statement was recorded after a gap of

¶28

criapln1402-2016

¶29

¶30

about 26 days.

¶31

6.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application. He

¶32

submitted that the statement of the victim would prima
facie show that the present applicants have attempted to
cause the death of the victim.

¶33

7.Considering all the material on record and
taking into consideration the fact that no history was
given to the Medical Officer when admittedly she was
immediately admitted to the Civil Hospital, Nanded and
after 26 days, the statement of the victim was recorded,
in my view, the custodial interrogation of the present
applicants is not required. Hence, the following
order:-

¶34

8.The interim protection granted by this Court to
the present three applicants vide order dated 4th March,
2016 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and
conditions.

¶35

.The present application is accordingly allowed
and disposed of.

¶36

[M.T. JOSHI]

¶37

criapln1402-2016

¶38

¶39

npj/criapln1402-2016

¶40

 JUDGE

Sarang S/O. Pandit Sanap and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarang S/O. Pandit Sanap and Others 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

Bandu @ Govind Manik Darade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahananda Gajanan Pailwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb S/O. Rambhau Chitekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte Vs Shri Madhusudan Manikrao Kendre and Others

Sharif Shaikh Naushad S/O Nuashad Shaikh Vs Samad Wahab Khan and Other

Rahul S/O. Dnyanoba Jadhawar Vs the State of Maharashtra