Allowed

Mayur Dilip Dhotre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jun 2017BA/884/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the bail application of Mayur Dilip Dhotre charged under Section 307 IPC and other offences. The court noted the lack of antecedents and the delay in recording the injured victim's statement as grounds for granting bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Applicant is enlarged on bail upon executing a non-cognizable bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount.

Mayur Dilip Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

BA 884-17.doc

¶2

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.884 OF 2017

¶4

Mayur Dilip Dhotre .Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶7

Mr.J.J.Bardeskar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.H.Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 09.06.2017

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.542 of 2016 registered with the Pimpri Police Station, District – Pune, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 37(1)(3) & 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the

¶13

incident in question has taken place on 24.09.2016 at about 10.30 p.m.. He submits that there is nothing on record to show

¶14

1 of 5

¶15

BA 884-17.doc

¶16

that the injured was unconscious and was unable to give his statement, for 30 days, inasmuch, as his statement was recorded after 30 days. He further submits that a perusal of the statement of the Complainant – Nilesh Digamber Arbhaikar, who is the brother of the injured – Jitendra shows that the injured had disclosed to him, that he was assaulted by Yogesh Bandpatte (Original Accused No.1) with a koyta on his stomach and by Dinesh (Original Accused No.2) with a koyta on his head and that the Applicant and his friends assaulted him with sticks. He submits that subsequently, after 30 days, the injured has falsely implicated the Applicant and has alleged that it was the Applicant, who took the koyta from the Accused No.1 – Yogesh and assaulted him on his stomach. He submits that the Applicant has no antecedents.

¶17

Learned APP is unable to show why the injured's statement was recorded after 30 days, despite the fact, that he was conscious and had disclosed the assault on him to Nilesh (Complainant) and his sister. He does not dispute the fact that the Applicant has no antecedents.

¶18

Perused the papers.

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

BA 884-17.doc

¶21

According to the Complainant – Nilesh (brother of the injured – Jitendra), the incident took place on 24.09.2016 at about 10.30 p.m. In the complaint, Nilesh has stated that Jitendra disclosed to him, that when he was on the Pune-Mumbai Highway, the Applicant alongwith other Accused came to the said spot armed with koyta and sticks. It is alleged that the Accused abused him; that Yogesh assaulted him with a koyta which landed on his stomach; that Accused No.2 – Dinesh assaulted him with a koyta on his head; and that the Applicant and others assaulted him with sticks. There is nothing on record to show that Jitendra was unconscious thereafter, till his statement was recorded on 27.10.2016. The statement of the Complainant and injured's sister is similar to that of the Complainant. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. There are no antecedents qua the Applicant.

¶22

7. Considering the aforesaid, the Application is allowed

¶23

and the Applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms & conditions:-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR

¶26

Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the

3 of 5

BA 884-17.doc

like amount;

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police

¶31

Station on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. till the conclusion of the trial;

¶32

(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶33

(iv) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶34

(v) The Applicant to cooperate with the conduct of the

¶35

trial;

¶36

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶37

the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the Applicant's bail.

¶38

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

It is made clear that the observations made herein

¶40

are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its

¶41

4 of 5

¶42

BA 884-17.doc

¶43

own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the

¶44

observations made in this order.

¶45

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶46

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶47

5 of 5

Mayur Dilip Dhotre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Dilip Dhotre 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

Chandrakant Mahadev Tavade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amardeep Ashok Dhole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Sona Patel Vs the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Subhash Motiram Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Ram Malusare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aakash Ananta Maral Vs the State of Maharashtra