Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application when applicant assaulted first informant, failed to identify weapon, and medical evidence corroborated informant's version.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Dond
aba.583-2017.sxw
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 583 OF 2017
Ganji Dharamsi Gothi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders.
Mr. Amit Rane a/w Ashok Chopra for applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State. Mr. S.B. Kale, API, D.N. Nagar Police Station present.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 3rd May 2017.
P.C.:
1] The applicant is apprehending arrest in CR. No.169 of 2017 registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai under Section 326, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2] It is the allegation against the applicant that due to earlier disputes or enmity the applicant who is brother-in-law of the first informant assaulted the first informant with hockey stick on the date of incident. That the first informant suffered injury to his left hand.
3] The record reveals that the medical certificate issued by Cooper Hospital, Mumbai prima facie corroborates the version of the first informant. There are three independent eye-witnesses to the incident. The said witnesses have categorically stated that the applicant removed hockey stick from dicky of his car and thereafter assaulted the first informant. Though under the directions of the Court, the applicant attended the
1 of 2
2
Dond
aba.583-2017.sxw
Investigating Officer, the record reveals that the said attendance and interrogation under the protection of pre-arrest bail was a mere formality. The weapon i.e. hockey stick used in the present crime is yet to be recovered by the police.
4] Considering the serious allegations levelled against the applicanat, and gravity of offence coupled with fact that there is need of recovery of weapon, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be granted pre-arrest bail.
5] The application is accordingly rejected.
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing serious allegations of assault requiring weapon recovery.
Ganji Dharamsi Gothi
State of Maharashtra
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
