Allowed

Anil Ramraya Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Feb 2017ABA/252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 395 IPC, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, who alleged prior enmity and retaliatory counter-attacks by the complainant, imposing standard conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.10,000 each with sureties, attending police station on specific days, and refraining from tampering with evidence or criminal activity.

Anil Ramraya Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

07-ABA-252-17.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2017

¶5

Anil Ramraya Kale and Anr.

¶6

.... Applicants

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶9

Mr.V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Rajan Salvi, APP for the State/Respondent. API – Mr.S.S. Kale, Mohol Police Station, Solapur Rural.

¶10

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 15^th FEBRUARY, 2017.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The applicants/accused apprehends pre-arrest bail in

¶13

C.R.No.75/15 registered with Mohol police Station at the instance of Indu Digamber Shinde, for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

It is the case of prosecution that on 04/03/2015 at night at around 01.00 a.m. the applicant/accused Anil Kale and Parameshwar Kale alongwith other two unknown persons forcibly entered into the house and committed robbery of gold

¶15

Nesarikar

¶16

2 / 4 07-ABA-252-17.odt

¶17

ornaments and cash of Rs.30,000/- and thereafter they went away. The complainant on the next day gave information to the police about the same.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused are innocent. They are falsely implicated in this case only because of the previous enmity and the offence registered against the family members of the complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that on 18/07/2014 brother of the applicant/accused was kidnapped by the sons of the complainant Indu. The offence was registered at C.R.No.266/14 at Mohol police station on 28/07/2014. The dead body of the brother of the applicant/accused No.1 and father of applicant/accused No.2 was found and thereafter section 302 was applied. He further submitted that Savita, the sister-in-law of the applicant/accused No.1 is an important witness to the incident and she was kidnapped on 02/03/2015 and was threatened by the sons of the complainant. Offence was registered at C.R.No.72/15 at Mohol Police Station. The learned

¶19

Nesarikar

¶20

3 / 4 07-ABA-252-17.odt

¶21

counsel further submitted that this is a counter attack and false

¶22

case was registered against the applicant/accused.

¶23

The learned prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the application may not be granted.

¶24

In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/accused and learned prosecutor, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

¶27

(ii) The applicants/accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and attend the concerned police station on every Thursday and Monday between 06.00 p.m. to 08.00 p.m.

¶28

Nesarikar

¶29

4 / 4 07-ABA-252-17.odt

¶30

(iii) The applicants/accused shall not tamper with the evidence or pressurize the complainant.

¶31

(iv) The applicants/accused shall not indulge into any criminal activity.

¶32

. The application stands disposed of on above terms.

¶33

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶34

Nesarikar

Anil Ramraya Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Ramraya Kale and Anr. 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

Mayur @ Bunty Namdeo Tekale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr.Amrutbhai M. Mistry Vs Mr.Kanaiyalal Purshottamdas Shah and Ors.

Abhijeet Eknath Gojare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Tanaji Gite Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pranali Pravin Sakpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaya Ganesh Waghire Vs the State of Maharashtra