Allowed

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Oct 2021ABA/1835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court at Bombay allowed the petition. The apex justice confirmed an interim protection order, ruling that the alleged theft of water and criminal intimidation did not warrant custodial interrogation, allowing the applicants to remain at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were granted anticipatory bail; ad-interim protection granted on 20th August 2021 was confirmed and made absolute.

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

19-ABA-1835-2021.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1835 OF 2021

¶4

Mr. Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal & Anr.

¶5

...Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Vijayraj Darekar
for the Applicants.
Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶10

CORAM:V.G.BISHT, J.
DATE:14th OCTOBER, 2021

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The present Application has been moved by the

¶13

Applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure apprehending arrest under Sections 382, 427, 447,

¶14

506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC)

¶15

registered vide Crime No. 340 of 2021 with Shikrapur Police

¶16

Station, Pune.

Trupti

1/4

19-ABA-1835-2021.DOC

2.The informant is owner of Gat No. 1221/2 situated at
Mauje Sanaswadi, Tal- Shirur, District- Pune. There is a well
in the said land of his ownership. It is alleged that the
Applicants are in collusion with tempo driver committed theft
of water from the well of informant from time to time. When
informant’s son contacted Applicant No.2, it is alleged, latter
threatened saying that he would forcibly take the water from
the well and also threatened to kill him and his father.
Informant accordingly lodged the report.

¶21

3.Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel, for the Applicants
submits that the entire allegations are in respect of drawing of
well water and transporting the same without permission of
the Informant. According to learned Senior Counsel, the FIR
is politically motivated and the Applicants have been falsely
implicated. Moreover, pursuant to the ad-interim protection
given by this Court, the Applicants co-operated with the
Investigating Officer and are still ready to co-operate with the
Investigating Officer. There being no necessity of custodial

Trupti

2/4

19-ABA-1835-2021.DOC

interrogation, the ad-interim protection so granted needs to
be confirmed, urged learned Senior Counsel.

¶26

4.Mrs. Shinde, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed
submission by contending that the Applicants have bad
antecedents and they are facing number of criminal cases. The
investigation is in progress and therefore, the Application
deserves to be rejected.

¶27

5.A careful perusal of the FIR would show that the only
allegation against the Applicants is that they allegedly drew
the water from the informant’s well without his permission
and indulged in criminal intimidation and extended threats to
harm informant and his son’s person.

¶28

6. Having regard to the nature of case, in my considered

¶29

opinion, this is not a fit case for custodial interrogation. As far
as the alleged antecedents are concerned, admittedly, nothing
is brought on record to show that in those cases the

Trupti

3/4

19-ABA-1835-2021.DOC

Applicants are convicted. Even otherwise, the facts of the case
do not warrant their custody with the Investigating Officer.
For this reason alone, I am inclined to allow the Application.
Hence, the following order :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i)Application is allowed ;

¶36

ii)The ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 20th
August, 2021 is confirmed and made absolute;

¶37

iii)The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

 (V.G.BISHT, J. )

¶39

Digitally signed by TRUPTI TRUPTI SADANAND SADANAND BAMNE BAMNE Date: 2021.10.14 19:45:34 +0530

¶40

Trupti

¶41

4/4

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal 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

Salman Mehraj Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Arun Waghole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral Vs the State of Maharashtra

Drishya Rajiv Chadha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chanda Shashikant Pise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra