Allowed

Uttam Nathu Raskar v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC13 Dec 2017ABA/1520/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC alleging apprehension of arrest for abetment to suicide. The High Court recorded prima facie observations that no case was made out for custodial interrogation and allowed bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with one or more solvent sureties in like amount.

Uttam Nathu Raskar Vs the State of Maharshtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

23 aba 1551 &.1520.2017

¶2

1/4

¶3

Dusane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2017

¶6

Rabhaji Dhondoba Thube Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

.... Applicant

.... Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1520 OF 2017

¶12

Uttam Nathu Raskar .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶13

Mr. Samarth Patil i/by Mr. Pranav P. Pokale for the Applicant in ABA No.1551 of 2017.

¶14

Mr. Aniket Nikam i/by Mr. Aashish Satpute for the applicant in ABA No. 1520 of 2017.

¶15

Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State.

¶16

Mr. Samarth Wagmode, PSI, Shirur Police Station, Pune (Gramin).

¶17

Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J. Date : 13^th December, 2017

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP.

¶20

Dusane

¶21

2/4 23 aba 1551 &.1520.2017

¶22

2 These are the applications under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants herein are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.420 of 2017, registered at Shirur Police Station, on 18^th June, 2017, for the offence punishable under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

¶23

3 It is the case of the prosecution that one Vaibhav Chandrakant Pacharane lodged a report at the Police Station on 18^th June 2017 alleging therein that his brother Yogesh Chandrakant Pacharane was working as a Peon in Panchayat Samittee, Shirur and his wife Varsha Yogesh was a civil engineer and she was getting work-contracts of Panchayat Samittee. In the year 2008, his father Chandrakant has stood as a guarantor to Devram Maruti Gawade, who had taken a loan from Parner Sainik Sahakari Bank. Since the loan could not be recovered, the bank was pressurising Devram to repay the amount and therefore Yogesh and his wife had changed their residence. It is alleged that Varsha had taken contracts of Panchayat Samittee and had given sub-contract to the present applicants. It is alleged that she had paid their dues but prior to

¶24

Dusane 3/4 23 aba 1551 &.1520.2017

¶25

paying the dues, she had issued cheques in their favour. The applicants had not returned the said cheques. That they were threatening Varsha to give more sub-contracts to them and had also threatened that they would present the cheques for encashment and lodge a case against her. It is, in these circumstances that Yogesh, who happens to be husband of Varsha has committed suicide. According to the complainant, his brother Yogesh has committed suicide due to harassment meted out to Varsha at the hands of the present applicants.

¶26

4 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations levelled against the present applicants would not make out a case either of abetment to commit suicide or it would neither amount to aiding the commission of suicide and hence, the applicants deserve pre-arrest bail. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, no case is made out for custodial interrogation. Hence,

¶27

the applicants deserve pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Dusane

¶29

4/4 23 aba 1551 &.1520.2017

¶30

5 However, the observations made hereinabove are prima

¶31

facie in nature. The learned Sessions Court shall not be influenced

¶32

by the above observations at the time of hearing the application for discharge or quashing of FIR or at the time of trial. The same be

¶33

decided on its own merits. Hence, the following order is passed :

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

1 The applications are allowed.

¶36

2 In the event of arrest in Crime No. 420 of 2017, registered at Shirur Police Station, on 18^th June, 2017, for the offence punishable under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/each with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶37

3 The applicants shall co-operate the investigating agency and report to the concerned police station as and when called by Police.

¶38

The applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

( Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J)

Uttam Nathu Raskar v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Nathu Raskar v. the State of Maharshtra

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

Babaso Bapu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abraham Doulappa Jan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Ramchandra Mali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rabhaji Dhondiba Thube Vs the State of Maharashtra