Partly allowed

Ramakant Akaram Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jan 2019ABA/8/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. Anticipatory bail was granted to Applicant No. 1 due to lack of direct involvement, subject to conditions. Bail was rejected for Applicant No. 2 due to direct evidence of assault on a public servant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Applicant No. 1 on Rs. 25,000 bond with conditions; prayer for Applicant No. 2 rejected.

Ramakant Akaram Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/2 Yadav 906.aba.8.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2019

¶4

Shri Ramakant Akaram Raut & Anr. … Applicants Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w Milind Sawant, Jagdish Sawant I/by P. G. Parkar for Applicants.

¶7

Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP for Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 4, 2019.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants.

¶11

The Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 369 of

¶12

2018 punishable under Sections 353, 332, 341, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

So far as the case of Applicant No.1 is concerned, he claims to

¶14

be a Sarpanch of the village and perusal of First Information Report and the order of the court below does not speak of any direct involvement of

¶15

the Applicant No.1 in the crime in question, but for his physical presence.

¶16

2/2

¶17

Yadav 906.aba.8.2019

¶18

Apart from above, the Applicant No.1 is very much available

¶19

in the investigation. That being so, in my opinion, the present Application at the behest of Applicant No.1 is allowed. Hence, the following order.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(A) In the event of arrest in Crime No. 369 of 2018 punishable under

¶22

Sections 353, 332, 341, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the Applicant No.1 be released on executing PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

(B) The Applicant No.1 shall attend the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of chargesheet.

¶24

¶25

So far as the claim of Applicant No.2 is concerned, there is direct evidence to connect him in the crime in question. The Applicant No. 2 has participated in the crime of assault on a public servant.

¶26

That being so, prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicant No.2 stands rejected.

¶27

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Ramakant Akaram Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Akaram Raut and Anr. 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

Arun Mukesh Hastodia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Karbhari Nalkande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Nathu Landage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Ramesh Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Dnyanoba Gawade Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafiq Usman Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra