Allowed

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

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016APPLN/1495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order converts interim protection into absolute bail for three applicants facing criminal offenses under the IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary given the simple nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted vide order dated 28/03/2016 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

Annasaheb S/O. Rambhau Chitekar and Others Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cr. Appln. 1495-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1495 OF 2016

¶4

1] Annasaheb S/o Rambhau Chitekar
 Age 43 years, Occupation : Agri.
 and social worker, resident of
 Tandulwadi (Khurd), Taluka and
 District Jalna

¶5

2] Ambadas S/o Rambhau Chitekar,
 Age 41 years, Occuupation : Agri.,
 resident of Tandulwadi (Khurd)
 Taluka and District Jalna

¶6

3] Shankar S/o Rambhau Chitekar,
 Age 37 years, Occupation : Agri.,
 resident of Tandulwadi (Khurd),
 Taluka and District Jalna.. Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra
Through Taluka Police Station, Jalna .. Respondent

¶9

Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni,
Advocate for assist to A.P.P.

¶10

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 18/04/2016

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

2.The present applicants, who are apprehending

¶14

arrest at the hands of Taluka Jalna Police Station,

¶15

2 Cr. Appln. 1495-2016

¶16

Dist. Jalna in crime no. 0073 of 2016 for the offences
punishable under section 307, 506, 341 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, are praying for their release on
bail, in the event of their arrest.

¶17

3.The complaint filed by one Jagannath Dolse
would show that all the present applicants in the noon
time on 23/02/2016, had assaulted the complainant with
wooden sticks, steel bar etc. and the applicant no.1 -
Annasaheb Chitekar made statement to others that the

¶18

complainant should be done to death. However, the
complainant's son and some other witnesses took away
the complainant towards the rest house.

¶19

4.Perused the copy of the injury certificate
supplied by the learned A.P.P. for perusal. It would
show that the complainant has received 1 contused
lacerated wound admeasuring 3 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm over
the eyebrow and one contusion on left side frontal
region of scalp admeasuring 3 cm X 3 cm. Both the
injuries were certified to be simple injuries by the
Medical Officer.

¶20

5.Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel for the

¶21

3 Cr. Appln. 1495-2016

¶22

applicants points towards the copies of the judgments
delivered in other cases by the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, would show that
previously, the complainant as well as some of the
applicants were together in various activities alleged
to have been committed by them. He further submits

¶23

that only because of enmity between the group, the
present complaint came to be filed and the offence
registered does not fit with the injury certificate.

¶24

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

¶25

submits that there were visible injuries on the person

¶26

of the complainant and in the circumstances, no
anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants.

¶27

7.Upon hearing both sides and considering the
background of the relations between the parties, the
allegations that three persons had assaulted the
complainant with sticks, steel bar etc., upon

¶28

comparison with the injury certificate, in my view, the
custodial interrogation of the applicants is not
required.

¶29

8.In the circumstances, the interim protection

¶30

4 Cr. Appln. 1495-2016

¶31

granted to the applicants by this Court vide order

¶32

dated 28/03/2016 is hereby made absolute on the same

¶33

terms and conditions.

¶34

9. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

[M.T. JOSHI]

¶37

 JUDGE

¶38

arp/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annasaheb S/O. Rambhau Chitekar 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

Raosaheb Vishwanath Tagad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Musakhan Vahedkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak S/O. Ambadas Gujrathi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meenabai Madhukar Patil Vs the Stae of Maharashtra

Pralhad S/O Govind Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejaswini Kailasrao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra