Allowed

Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Jun 2021ABA/1199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted anticipatory bail to two applicants, Suraj Jadhav and Dnyaneshwar Katkar, regarding a charge of assaulting an employee for seeking a representation against electricity connection disconnection. foreseeing their arrest.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail by furnishing P.R. bonds of Rs. 30,000/- each with one or two sureties in like amount.

Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

19-ABA-1199-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 OF 2021

¶4

1. Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav
2. Dnyaneshwar Satish Katkar .... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______

¶5

Ms. Shubhada Khot with Bakul Vyas a/w. Jaydeep Shringare for
applicants.

¶6

Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 30^th JUNE, 2021 ( Through Video Conferencing)

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1. Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶10

with C.R.No. 58 of 2021, registered at Pusegaon Police Station,

¶11

Satara, under sections 353, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

¶12

the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2. Heard Ms. Shubhada Khot, learned counsel for the

¶14

applicants and Smt. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State.

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

Gokhale

¶17

19-ABA-1199-2021.odt

¶18

3.The FIR is lodged by one Shailesh Rakshe. He was
working with Maharashtra State Electricity distribution Company ,
sub division Khatav as Deputy Executive Engineer. The FIR
mentions that there were outstanding dues of electricity bills and
therefore the informant and his colleagues had gone to Pusegaon
on 15/3/2019, at 11.00 a.m. in their Bolero vehicle. One
Ramchandra Jadhav refused to pay the bill. Therefore, they
disconnected his electricity connection. At that time, both the
applicants came there and told the informant and others that they
wanted to give a written representation to the informant. They
told the informant and others to come to Shivaji Chowk and
requested the informant not to recover outstanding bills. The
informant and others went to Shivaji Chowk. At that time, besides
the applicants, two more persons Pratap Jadhav and Dinesh
Devkar were present. They abused and threatened the informant.
Prashant and Dinkar pelted stones and broke the wind shield of
the car. After that all of them went away. On this basis the FIR is
lodged.

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

Gokhale

¶21

19-ABA-1199-2021.odt

¶22

4.Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the
informant and others wanted to disconnect the electricity
connection of entire village which would have even affected water
supply and would have caused hardship to the villagers. The
applicants only wanted to give representation against that. They
are falsely implicated. She submitted that in any case the main
allegation of breaking the wind shield is against other two
accused. Both the applicants had not caused any damage.

¶23

5.Learned APP has sought instructions and has submitted

¶24

that the prosecution case is reflected in the F.I.R. itself. The
statements of eye witnesses are consistent with the narration in the
F.I.R.

¶25

6.I have, therefore, considered the submissions made by

¶26

both sides.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants, the overt act is attributed to the co-accused and not to
the present applicants. There is a strong possibility that the
applicants have acted with bonafide intentions in the interest of

¶27

3 of 4

¶28

Gokhale

¶29

19-ABA-1199-2021.odt

¶30

public at large and there was no personal interest involved. In this
view of the matter, applicants can be protected by an order of
anticipatory bail.

¶31

6. Hence the following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i)In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.
No.58 of 2021, registered with Pusegaon Police
Station, Satara, the applicants are directed to be
released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bonds in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶34

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶36

4 of 4

¶37

Gokhale

Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav 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

Nitin Waman Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Raosaheb Sukale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Dattatray Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb Maruti Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Chandrakant Garud Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rekha Sunil Dolare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra