Allowed

Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Oct 2016APPLN/5232/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a bail application. The court observed that although the accused is a brother of the forging victim, substantial investigation was complete and the assault had not been turned into murder. Bail was granted with surety.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000 and furnishing surety in like amount with conditions.

Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 ) cria5232.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5232 OF 2016

¶4

Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad..Applicant
Age. 60 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Loni, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶7

Mr.B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, APP for respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J. DATED : 27.10.2016

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1.The applicant/accused in Crime No.I-131 of 2016,
registered with Jamkhed Police Station for offences
punishable under sections 326, 325, 323, 504, 506 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by this
application, is seeking his release on bail.

¶11

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and
learned A.P.P.

¶12

3.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application by
contending that there is every possibility of repetition
of crime in question as the applicant is related to the
prosecuting party and they are having hostility.

¶13

4.Perused papers of investigation. The applicant
is real brother of the informant. The informant
suspected that the applicant and his sons created a
trouble in settlement of marriage of his daughter.
According to the prosecution case on 16.08.2016, the
applicant and his associates assaulted informant
Balasaheb Parkad as well as Anna Parkad and Vinod Parkad.
Perusal of injury certificate shows that Anna and
Balasaheb suffered grievous injury whereas Vinod suffered
simple injury. Learned A.P.P. makes a statement that all
injured are already discharged from the hospital. As
such, possibility of turning the offence in the graver
one is not there. Substantial part of the investigation
is already over. Apprehension of the prosecution can be
taken care of by imposing necessary conditions. Hence, I
see no reason to deny bail to the applicant. Therefore,
the order :-

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

i)The application is allowed.

¶16

ii)Applicant/accused-Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad
in Crime No.I-131 of 2016, registered with
Jamkhed Police Station for offences punishable
under sections 326, 325, 323, 504, 506 read with

¶17

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released
on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 15,000/-
[Rupees Fifteen Thousand] and on furnishing
surety in the like amount.

¶18

iii)As a condition of this Order, the
applicant shall not extend any threat,
inducement or promise to the persons
acquainted with the facts of the accusation
so as to dissuade them from disclosing the same
either to the police or the Court.

¶19

iv)The applicant shall not tamper the
evidence of the prosecution.

¶20

v)The applicant to co-operate the trial Court
in the expeditious disposal of trial against
him, on filing of charge-sheet, if any.

¶21

[A.M. BADAR,J.]

¶22

snk/2016/OCT16/ cria5232.16

Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Sambhaji Parkad 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

Haji Abdul Munaf Shaikh Ahmed Pinjari Vs Amjad Khan Mohammad Khan and Anr.

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kantaprasad S/O Balaprasad Zawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umakant S/O Vishwanath Dhonde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra S/O Dadasaheb Bhuse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.