Allowed

Swapnil@Bacchu Namdev Ghatage v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2019APEAL/92/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal challenging the rejection of bail. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the appellant on bail, holding that pre-trial detention was not warranted despite the serious offences involved.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was quashed and set aside; the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and security.

Swapnil@Bacchu Namdev Ghatage Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.92 OF 2019

¶5

SWAPNIL @ BACCHU NAMDEV GHATAGE )...APPELLANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

1) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) ) 2) ROSHAN SUNIL KAMBLE )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Tanaji Mhatugde, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State.

¶10

CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 26^th MARCH 2019

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

1 Heard. Admit. Heard finally, as the appeal is arising

¶13

from order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the application for grant of regular bail to the appellant/accused no.1.

¶14

avk 1/6

¶15

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶16

2 By this appeal, the appellant/accused no.1 is challenging the order dated 19^th October 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, below Exhibit 28 in Sessions Case No.121 of 2018, thereby rejecting his application for release on bail in the said sessions case for offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶17

3 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. He submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, further pretrial detention of the appellant/accused is not warranted. As against this, the learned APP opposed the appeal and supported the impugned order rejecting bail by contending that after assaulting the victim, the appellant/accused chased him right inside the police station, and therefore, considering this

¶18

avk 2/6

¶19

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶20

conduct, he is not entitled for bail. None appeared for respondent no.2/First Informant, despite service.

¶21

4 We have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the chargesheet. Statement of injured Roshan Kamble recorded on 9^th June 2018 shows that on 8^th June 2018 there was quarrel between two parties and he pacified both parties by intervening in the said quarrel. At that time, the appellant/ accused and his associates gave threats to him. Thereafter, on 9^th June 2018, when he was returning to his house, the appellant/accused and his associates intercepted him. First Informant Roshan Kamble further stated that when he was trying to run away, the appellant/accused gave blow of knife on his back, coaccused Ganesh Chavan hit him with a piece of tile and other accused persons assaulted him by means of fists and kick blows. The First Information Report (FIR) further reflects that when Roshan Kamble took shelter at the police station, the appellant/accused and coaccused Ganesh Chavan chased him inside the police station where they came to be apprehended by

¶22

avk 3/6

¶23

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶24

the police. It is seen from the record that injured Roshan Kamble took medical treatment at the Government Medical Hospital at Kolhapur. He was found to have suffered stab wounds at left lower back of size 2 x 1 cm. Blade of the knife was found in situ and it had pierced skin and muscle. There was no injury to kidney or other parts of the body of the victim. Apart from this stab injury, the injured was having contusion of size 3 x 2 cm on left temporal region.

¶25

5 Investigation of the crime in question is over and sessions case arising therefrom is pending for trial before the learned Special Judge. Considering the nature of injury suffered by the victim, on conclusion of trial, it will have to be determined whether the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not. However, pretrial detention of the appellant/accused is not warranted. The learned trial court has failed to consider nature of wounds suffered by the victim and had rejected the application for grant of bail by recording that the offence is serious and punishment can go up to

¶26

avk 4/6

¶27

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶28

10 years or life. Injury certificate was kept out of consideration by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter, the following order :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned order dated 19^th October 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, below Exhibit 28 in Sessions Case No.121 of 2018, thereby rejecting his application for grant of bail of the appellant/accused is quashed and set aside.

¶32

iii) The appellant/accused is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.94 of 2018 registered with Kagal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on

¶33

avk 5/6

¶34

15-APPEAL-92-2019.doc

¶35

executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ and on furnishing surety in like amount.

¶36

iv) As a condition of this order, the appellant/accused should not repeat commission of similar offence in future.

¶37

v) The appellant/accused shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police officer.

¶38

vi) The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

¶39

(A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

¶40

avk 6/6

Swapnil@Bacchu Namdev Ghatage v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil@Bacchu Namdev Ghatage v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Laxman Dharma Patil and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 14 Ors.

M/S. Vedehi Synthetics Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Niraj Ghanshyam Bidawatka and Anr. Vs Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Soc. and Ors.

Mr. Khalid S/O. Abdul Rahim Siddiqui Vs Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Apex Minority Textile Co-Op. Soc. Ltd. , Ichalkaranji and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Ministry of Co-Op. , Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Sunil Shantaram Kamath and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.