Partly allowed

Sanjay Shankar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Feb 2017ABA/302/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two anticipatory bail applications. Interim pre-arrest bail was granted to three applicants with clean criminal records until February 28, 2017, subject to specific conditions. Anticipatory bail was denied to two other applicants due to pending cases pending against them.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted to Sanjay Shankar Patil, Harishchandra Govind Patil, and Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke pending before the trial court. Application of Jitendra Ananta Phadke and Gurunath

Sanjay Shankar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

905.ABA302 & 327_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 302 OF 2017

¶4

Sanjay Shankar Patil ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2017 IN

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 302 OF 2017

¶7

Rajesh Rambhau Phadke … Intervener in the matter between Sanjay Shankar Patil ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 327 OF 2017

¶9

Harishchandra Govind Patil

¶10

Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke

¶11

Jitendra Ananta Phadke

¶12

Gurunath Pandharinath Phadke ... Applicants Vs.

¶13

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶14

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2017 IN

¶15

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 327 OF 2017

¶16

Rajesh Rambhau Phadke … Intervener in the matter between 1. Harishchandra Govind Patil 2. Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke 3. Jitendra Ananta Phadke 4. Gurunath Pandharinath Phadke ... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶17

1 / 5

¶18

905.ABA302 & 327_2017.doc

¶19

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant in both the Anticipatory Bail Applications.

¶20

Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w. Mr. Ganesh Mohite, Advocate for the Intervener.

¶21

Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent/State in ABA/302/2017. Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Respondent/State in ABA/327/2017. Mr. Rahul Laxman Bhoj, P.S.I., Panvel Taluka Police Station, Raigad present.

¶22

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 22^nd February, 2017.

¶23

P.C.:

¶24

These Anticipatory Bail Applications are moved because the

¶25

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag did not grant interim protection when the notice was issued to learned Public Prosecutor. Notices are returnable on 28^th February, 2017.

¶26

The applicants/accused are apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 13 of 2017 registered with Panvel Taluka Police Station, Navi Mumbai under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 323, 504, 506(2), 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that there was cross fight between the two political groups. He submitted that the applications are made for limited prayer, i.e., to

¶28

2 / 5

¶29

905.ABA302 & 327_2017.doc

¶30

grant interim protection till 27^th February, 2017. He submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicants/accused.

¶31

The learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the Anticipatory Bail Applications and submitted that the matter is fixed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag on 28^th February, 2017.

¶32

It is confirmed by the learned APP, on instructions, that applicants/accused Sanjay Shankar Patil, Harishchandra Govind Patil and Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke do not have criminal antecedents, however, cases are pending against applicants/accused Jitendra Ananta Phadke and Gurunath Pandharinath Phadke. Under such circumstances, no interim anticipatory bail is granted to Anticipatory bail is granted to applicants/accused Jitendra Ananta Phadke and Gurunath Pandharinath Phadke.

¶33

However, interim pre-arrest bail is granted to

¶34

applicants/accused Sanjay Shankar Patil, Harishchandra Govind Patil and Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke till 28^th February, 2017 on

¶35

3 / 5

¶36

905.ABA302 & 327_2017.doc

¶37

the following terms and conditions:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

i) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused Sanjay Shankar Patil, Harishchandra Govind Patil and Mangesh Pandharinath Phadke shall be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶40

ii) The applicants/accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and attend the concerned police station every day between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. till the next date.

¶41

iii) The applicants/accused shall not commit any offence; iv) The applicants/accused shall not pressurize the complainant or any witnesses;

¶42

v) The applicants/accused shall not abscond or leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and furnish their permanent address to the Investigating Officer alongwith documentary proof.

¶43

The learned trial Judge to decide the Anticipatory Bail Applications on merit, as no finding is given on merit by this Court. The learned trial Judge to decide the Applications preferably on 28^th

¶44

4 / 5

¶45

905.ABA302 & 327_2017.doc

¶46

February, 2017.

¶47

Anticipatory Bail Applications stand disposed of. Criminal Applications are also disposed of accordingly.

¶48

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶49

5 / 5

Sanjay Shankar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Shankar Patil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanadar Mohobul Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Tukaram Nimbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishesh R Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amitbalraj Chandrakumar Shrivastav Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.

Harishchandra Govind Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chintamani Balasaheb Pawle Vs the State of Maharashtra