Allowed

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Oct 2021ABA/2176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram V. G. Bisht, J., on 14th October 2021, allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant faced charges for illegal sand excavation under the IPC and Environment Protection Act. The court granted bail noting that the accused had been arrested, investigation was pending without necessity for custody, and materials were already seized.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; relief of release on bail granted on execution of Personal Bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2-ABA-2176-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2176 OF 2021

¶5

DNYANESHWAR SHIVAJI SOLANKHE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr.Ghansham Jadhav, Advocate, for the Applicant.
Smt.Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

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

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1The present application has been moved by the

¶14

applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
apprehending arrest under Section 439, 379 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 15 of the
Environment Protection Act, registered vide Crime No.I-371 of
2020 with Police Station Bhigwan.

¶15

AVK 1/5

¶16

2-ABA-2176-2021.doc

¶17

2It is alleged that on 23rd September 2020 the applicant
along with other accused was indulging in excavation near
Village Takrarwadi. The police seized two boats and eight brass
of sand. Offence accordingly came to be registered under the
relevant sections of IPC and Environment Protection Act.

¶18

3Mr.Ghansham Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that some of the accused have already been arrested and
have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Moreover,
accused namely Sonya Balasaheb Sarak whose role is similar to
the present applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail
by the learned trial Court and therefore, on the ground of parity,
the present applicant is also entitled to be given the benefit of
pre-arrest bail.

¶19

4Apart from this, the learned counsel submits that the boats
in question and the sand have already been seized by the
Investigating Officer and therefore, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not at all necessary. Even otherwise, the applicant is

¶20

AVK 2/5

¶21

2-ABA-2176-2021.doc

¶22

ready to co-operate the investigating agency if directed by this
Court.

¶23

5Smt.Veera Shinde, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed
the submissions by contending that the applicant and other
accused were found illegally excavating sand. There are
statements of witnesses showing the presence of the present
applicant on the spot when the raid was carried out by the police.
Investigation is in progress and therefore having regard to the
nature of offence, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶24

6I have carefully gone through the First Information Report
(FIR) and as also the investigation papers submitted by the
learned APP. As far as the FIR is concerned, the present applicant
is shown to be the owner of the boat which was allegedly used in
the excavation of the sand. I have also gone through the
statement of the witnesses relied by the learned APP wherein it is
specifically stated that the present applicant along with accused
Sonya Balasaheb Sarak had jumped into the river in order to

¶25

AVK 3/5

¶26

2-ABA-2176-2021.doc

¶27

make their escape good and to avoid the arrest at the hands of
the police. However, the learned APP does not dispute that said
accused namely Sonya Balasaheb Sarak has already been granted
anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court. It is also not in
dispute that that the role of said Sonya Balasaheb Sarak and the
present applicant is on the same footing. I do not, therefore, find
any reason not to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail in favour of
the applicant.

¶28

7Even otherwise, everything has been seized and having
regard to this peculiar fact, I do not find the necessity for
custodial interrogation. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the
application. Hence the following order :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

1 The application is allowed.

¶31

2 In the event of his arrest in Crime No.I-371 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 439, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 15 of the

¶32

AVK 4/5

¶33

2-ABA-2176-2021.doc

¶34

Environment Protection Act with Police Station Bhigwan, the
applicant be released on bail on executing P.R.Bond in sum
of Rs.20,000/- with 1 surety in like amount.

¶35

3 The applicant shall attend Police Station Bhigwan as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶36

4 The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence.

¶37

5 The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶38

(V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶39

ARTI VILAS KHATATE

¶40

Digitally signed byARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2021.10.14 13:03:57 +0530

¶41

AVK 5/5

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe 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

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Drishya Rajiv Chadha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chanda Shashikant Pise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra