Dismissed

Ramesh Babulal Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2018APPLN/149/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applications under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to two accused persons were rejected. The High Court found no error in the learned Additional Sessions Judge's orders and held they were within conformity with settled principles of law, noting the Trial Court considered seizure of a mobile phone and investigation needs. Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessar

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramesh Babulal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

27-APPLN149-18+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2018

¶5

Ramesh Babulal Patil ...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2018

¶9

Ramesh Babulal Patil ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶10

Mr. Balwant Salunkhe, for the Applicant. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Fuzail Wasif, a/w N. R. Bubna, for Respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM: A. S. GADKARI, J DATED: 12^th December, 2018

¶12

PC:-

¶13

These are applications under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent nos. 2 respectively. Respondent no.2 in Application No.149 of 2018 is granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, by its order dated 3^rd November, 2017 passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.605 of 2017 and Respondent no.2 in Application No.139 of 2018 is granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, by its order dated 4^th November, 2017 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.608 of 2017.

¶14

1/3

¶15

27-APPLN149-18+.DOC

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 in both the applications and the learned APP. Perused the record.

¶17

The applicant is the first informant and father of deceased Deepak Ramesh Patil. It is the prosecution case that the marriage of Deepak was solemnised with respondent no.2 Smt. Shubhangi (Application no.149/2018) prior to six years of the date of the alleged incident i.e. 10^th October, 2017. Out of their wedlock a son has begotten. It is the allegation against respondent no.2 Smt. Shubhanig that, she was insisting the deceased to transfer the landed property standing in his name, in her own name. That Shubhani was also having illicit relations with Mahadev Nagare – respondent no.2 (Application no.139/2018). That due to the constant harassment at the hands of Shubhangi over the issue of transfer of property and her illicit relations with Mahadeo, Deepak committed suicide at his residential place at Nandgaon, on 10^th October, 2017.

¶18

As noted earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted pre-arrest bail to the respective respondent nos.2 by the impugned orders. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is a serious offence and as per his instructions the mobile phone from which Shubhangi used to contact Mahadeo is not yet seized

¶19

2/3

¶20

27-APPLN149-18+.DOC

¶21

by the police and therefore the custodial interrogation of Shubahngi is necessary. He further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court are bad in law and requires interference at the hands of this Court. He therefore prayed that the present applications may be allowed and the impugned Orders may be set aside.

¶22

After minutely perusing the impugned orders, it appears that, the Trial Court after taking into consideration the various circumstances of the present case and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Count in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others has granted pre-arrest bail to respective respondent nos.2. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact of seizure of mobile phone and the balance between the process of investigation and custodial interrogation of respondent nos.2.

¶23

After taking into consideration the facts involved in the present case and the well reasoned orders passed by the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court as the said orders are passed within the conformity of settled principles of law. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error.

¶24

In view thereof, applications are accordingly rejected.

¶25

[A. S. GADKARI, J.]

¶26

3/3

Ramesh Babulal Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramesh Babulal Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadari Azaruddin Bilal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imrankhan Mehboobkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Dwarkanath Bakre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yunus Jainuddin Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Nathrav Musale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb @ Balu Vitthal Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra