Allowed

Vishwas David Valvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2021ABA/1452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with C.R. No. 177/2021. The Court observed that the primary allegations against the applicant were at most bailable under Section 354-A(iv) of IPC, notwithstanding the FIR filing dates.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount upon arrest.

Vishwas David Valvi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

 29.ABA-1452-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1452 OF 2021

¶5

Vishwas David Valvi .... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Smt. P.U. Badadare, Advocate a/w. Rahul Singh, Pranali Raut
i/b. M/s. Legal Catalyst, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 19^th JULY, 2021 [Through Video Conferencing]

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in

¶11

connection with C.R.No.177/2021 registered at Kasarvadavali

¶12

Police Station, Thane on 1.6.2021 under sections 354, 354A,
323, 427, 504, 506, 141, 142, 149, 188, 269, 270, 143 of the

¶13

Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2.Heard Smt P.U. Badadare, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri H.J. Dedhia, learned APP for the State.

¶15

3.The FIR is lodged by the victim on 1.6.2021. She

¶16

has narrated about the dispute in respect of land situate at

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Deshmane (PS)

¶19

 : 2 : 29.ABA-1452-21.odt

¶20

village Ovaale, District Thane. On 26.5.2021 at about 2:30
p.m. , the applicant, Yogesh Sonavane and 3 to 4 unknown
persons entered into that land and threatened the informant.
Thereafter on the next day i.e. on 27.5.2021, both the parties
had approached the police station. In the evening again these
persons entered into that land forcibly. It is alleged that the
applicant threatened her to involve her in a false case. It is
mentioned that the accused Yogesh pulled her and passed
some derogatory remarks. There are allegations against the
present applicant that he also passed some indecent remarks
against her. Yogesh pushed her. She fell down. In the
incident, her chain was lost somewhere.

¶21

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the allegations against the present applicant are not within the
meaning of Section 354 of IPC. At the highest it can be an
offence under Section 354-A(iv) of IPC. Said offence is
bailable. Therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted to the
applicant.

¶22

5.She also invited my attention to the FIR lodged by

¶23

2 of 4

¶24

 : 3 : 29.ABA-1452-21.odt

¶25

the applicant vide C.R. No.175/2021 dated 31.5.2021 mainly
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at the same police station.
She submitted that therefore the informant’s story is not true.

¶26

6.Learned APP opposed this application based on the
allegations in the FIR.

¶27

7.I have considered these submissions. First of all,
there is a cross FIR lodged by the applicant immediately on
31.5.2021. The informant in this case had given her FIR on
1.6.2021.

¶28

8.Shri Dedhia, learned APP, submitted that the
informant in this case had earlier approached the police
station but the FIR was not actually registered. Be that as it
may, the main contention of learned counsel for the applicant
regarding the actual incident is important. As can be seen
from the FIR, the main allegations of commission of offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC are directed against
Yogesh Sonavane. The role attributed to the present applicant
will at the most fall within Section 354-A(iv) of IPC, which is a

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

 : 4 : 29.ABA-1452-21.odt

¶31

bailable offence. In this view of the matter, the applicant can
be protected by an order of anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.177/2021 registered with
Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane, the
applicant is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii)Anticipatory Bail Application stands
disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶35

Deshmane (PS)

¶36

4 of 4

Vishwas David Valvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas David Valvi 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

Murukraj Unnikrishnan Nair Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Sudam Nikalje and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nasir Ahmed Kaleemi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Wahid Muqhtar Shaikh @ Shaikh Vahid Ahmed Mukhtar Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shreeram Agarwal S/O. Keshavdev Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gautam Shyamsundar Lath Vs the State of Maharashtra