Partly allowed

Arjun Shripati Sonandkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Jun 2019ABA/1080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction considered an anticipatory bail application regarding charges of criminal intimidation and assault arising from a dispute over sugarcane cutting and water access between two brothers. The court appointed a single judge, noting the involvement of a police officer as a complainant but located the incident within a civil dispute context suppor

What did the court decide?

Release on bail for Applicant Nos.1 and 2 in connection with C.R. No.160/2019 execution of P.R. bond in Rs.25,000 each with one or two sureties each in similar amount.

Arjun Shripati Sonandkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 1 - ABA No.1080-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1080 OF 2019

¶5

Arjun Shripati Sonandkar & Ors. ] … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra. ] … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Chandrakant P. Yadav for Applicants.

¶7

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for State.

¶8

Mr. Samadhan Vasant Bile, API attached to Miraj Rural Police Station, Sangli.

¶9

CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 03 JUNE, 2019

¶10

P. C. :-

¶11

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with

¶12

C.R. No.160/2019 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, Dist.

¶13

Sangli u/sec. 353, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

¶14

During pendency of this application, Applicant No.3 came to be arrested on 27.03.2019 and therefore the application on his behalf has become infructuous. Therefore, I am considering the application to

¶15

the extent of Applicant Nos.1 and 2 only.

¶16

Purti Parab

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

2 1 - ABA No.1080-19.doc

¶19

The FIR in the present case is lodged by police constable Rajendra Babar attached to Miraj Rural Police Station, Dist. Sangli. It is mentioned in the FIR that on 23.03.2019 he was told by his superior that one Ramchandra Sonandkar needs police protection from the present applicants as the present applicants were interfering with his right to cut the sugarcane crop. Ramchandra Sonandkar had asked for police protection and accordingly he was granted such protection. On 23.03.2019 the first informant along with his other colleagues/officers went to the land of Ramchandra Sonandkar. It is mentioned in the FIR that a quarrel was going on between applicants' family and his brother Ramchandra Sonandkar's family near the common well. It is further mentioned that when the police tried to intervene, the applicants pushed them and told them not to interfere in their private dispute. The applicant no.1 also insisted that he may not allow his brother to carry on the work of cutting of sugarcane. He also resisted to give water from the common well. On these allegations the FIR was lodged under the aforesaid sections.

¶20

Heard Mr. Chandrakant P. Yadav for Applicants and Ms.Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for State. Purti Parab

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

3 1 - ABA No.1080-19.doc

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the Applicants pointed out the order passed by a competent Civil Court in the injunction application made in the civil suit. The civil suit was filed by Ramchandra Sonandkar against the present applicant no.1 for partition of their property. The suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Miraj vide regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2013. Vide order dtd. 08.01.2019 passed below Exh.84, the Ld. Civil Judge, by an interim order injuncted the applicants from interfering with the brother Ramchandra's right to take water from their common well. By the operative part no.3, the Ld. Judge rejected Ramchandra's prayer for injunction against applicant no.1 from interfering with common use of the suit property. In view of the order passed by the competent court, the applicant no.1's brother Ramchandra had no business to ask for police protection and police had no business to grant police protection contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court. In any case from the contents of the FIR, the incident appears to be a trivial incident and the applicant no.1 was well within his right to point out the orders passed by the Civil Court and protect his right. The FIR is lodged by a police officer. The important witnesses are from the police party, therefore there is no question of possibility of tampering with the Purti Parab

¶24

3 of 4

¶25

4 1 - ABA No.1080-19.doc

¶26

evidence. Taking all these circumstances into account, no case is

¶27

made out for custodial interrogation of the applicants. Hence, the following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.160 of 2019 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 be released on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶30

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶31

4 of 4

¶32

Purti Parab

Arjun Shripati Sonandkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Shripati Sonandkar and Ors. 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

Amar Suresh Rale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Dattaram Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Gajanan Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pammi Bhagwan Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Digambar Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bazil Shaikh Dastgir Vs the State of Maharashtra