Allowed

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Oct 2021ABA/1886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 326, 323, 504 read with 34 IPC. The Court noted recovery of the weapon and nature of injuries as grounds for grant.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted on executing a bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in like amount; applicant directed not to tamper with prosecution evidence.

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

12-ABA-1886-2021.DOC

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUPTI TRUPTI SADANAND SADANAND BAMNE BAMNE Date: 2021.10.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 20:32:08 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1886 OF 2021

¶4

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶7

……
Mr.Aniket Nikam i/b. Mr.Vivek N. Arote for the Applicant.
Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶8

CORAM:V.G.BISHT, J.
DATE:13th OCTOBER, 2021

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. The present Application has been moved by the

¶11

Applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

¶12

Procedure apprehending arrest under Sections 326, 323, 504

¶13

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

¶14

vide Crime No. 246 of 2021 with Yerwada Police Station,
Pune.

¶15

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7^th May, 2021 at

¶16

about 12.30 am to 1.00 am, when the informant was taking a

Trupti

1/4

12-ABA-1886-2021.DOC

walk, the accused Ajay Patekar and Shubham Avsarmal were
sitting on the tapari of co-accused Mangal Thokal. Accused
Ajay Patekar then called informant and asked him as to why
he was wandering though there was curfew on account of
lock down. Even accused Ajay Patekar and the present
Applicant abused informant. It is alleged that the present
Applicant then inflicted a blow on the head of informant by
means of a sickle (koyta). Other accused also assaulted
informant. Informant accordingly lodged the report.

¶21

3.Mr.Nikam, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits
that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Moreover, the alleged weapon has already been recovered at
the instance of co-accused. Thus, there is no necessity of
custodial interrogation of the Applicant.Hence, the Applicant
deserves to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail, urged
learned Counsel.

¶22

4. Per contra, Mr.Agarkar, learned APP, opposes submission

¶23

by contending that the investigation is in progress and having

Trupti

2/4

12-ABA-1886-2021.DOC

regard to the nature of accusation, the present Application
deserves to be rejected.

¶28

5.Learned APP has also produced the investigation papers
for my perusal. I have carefully gone through the contents of
FIR and investigation papers. I have also seen the injury
certificate issued by C.M.O., Sassoon General Hospital, Pune
pertaining to informant. Although, it is alleged in the FIR that
the present Applicant had given a blow of sickle on the head
of informant but the injuries noted by the concerned C.M.O.
shows that there were CLW over Rt. temporo occipital area of
head, linear abrasion over Lt. Side of abdomen and incised
wound over back.

¶29

6.It is pertinent to note that all these injuries were
allegedly caused by means of hard, blunt object and sharp
edged object and the nature of injuries was simple. It is also
not disputed that, during the course of argument, the sickle
has already been recovered by the Investigating Officer.

Trupti

3/4

12-ABA-1886-2021.DOC

7. In view of above, I am inclined to allow the present Application. Hence, the following order :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The Application is allowed;

¶36

ii)In the event of his arrest in Crime No.246 of 2021 for
the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504 read
with 34 of the IPC registered with Yerwada Police Station,
Pune, the Applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond
in sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two surety in like amount;

¶37

iii).The Applicant shall not tamper the prosecution
evidence;

¶38

iv)The Application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶39

 (V.G.BISHT, J. )

¶40

Trupti

¶41

4/4

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Bhagwan Shiral 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

Shankar Shivaji Dhale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Shivaji Dhale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Ramesh Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Salman Mehraj Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Arun Waghole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Darshan Uttam Donde Vs the State of Maharashtra