Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to applicant charged under IPC 307 in a cross-complaint tussle where other accused suffered grievous injuries and applicant's role was deemed lesser, deeming interrogation unnecessary.
Released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 : 6.ABA-270-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2021
Digambar Bhau Dhule.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Mr. Vaibhav P. Punekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.
API Govind Patil, Karjat Police Station, District – Raigad.
CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 01st FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.111/2020 registered at Karjat Police
Station, District - Raigad on 26.5.2020 under Section 307 and
other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.
2.Heard Shri Vaibhav Punekar, learned Counsel for
the Applicant and Shri S.H. Yadav, learned APP for the State.
3.The FIR is lodged by one Rohidas Parshuram Dhule
in respect of an incident dated 25.5.2020, which had taken
place at 5:30 p.m. He was in his house. At that time, he heard
1 of 5
Deshmane (PS)
: 2 : 6.ABA-270-21.odt
some noise. So he went out. He saw that there was some
quarrel which was going on in front of Ravindra Dhule’s house.
He saw that his nephews Milind and Nitin had fallen on the
road. They were being assaulted by Raghunath, Kavishwar
and Kashinath with sword. The informant tried to intervene,
but, Shantaram gave a blow on his hand. The informant’s
other relatives came there. At that time, the accused
Shantaram called his group members. It is further alleged that
thereafter few other accused including the present Applicant
came there. The Applicant was carrying a stick. In the FIR it is
mentioned that the Applicant gave a blow with stick on the
shoulder of Ketan Dhule. There are other allegations against
other accused.
4.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the injury which is attributed to the present Applicant is simple
injury. He has not assaulted on vital part of any of the injured.
He submitted that the Applicant’s group had lodged their own
FIR vide C.R. No.112/2020, at the same police station, on the
same day. The FIR is lodged under Section 326 and other
2 of 5
: 3 : 6.ABA-270-21.odt
Sections of IPC. He submitted that from Applicant’s side many
persons suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, the FIR lodged
against the Applicant’s group is not true.
5.Learned A.P.P. opposed this application and he
relied on the medical certificates issued in this case.
6.I have perused those medical certificates. There are
certificates issued by Aadhar Multispeciality Hospital, Old
Panvel and the certificates issued by Rural Hospital, Kashele.
These certificates show that only Milind and Nitin have suffered
some serious injuries. According to the certificate issued by
Rural Hospital, Kashele, Milind had suffered one grievous
injury on his left wrist. He has suffered two simple injuries on
his head and one simple injury on forearm. Ketan’s injury on
the back is described as a simple injury. All other injured have
suffered simple injuries. Nitin has suffered one simple injury
on head.
7.I have considered all these submissions.
Admittedly, there is complaint and cross-complaint. Learned
3 of 5
: 4 : 6.ABA-270-21.odt
A.P.P., on instructions, fairly makes a statement that even the
Applicant’s group has suffered grievous injuries caused by
sword. Therefore, obviously the FIR against the present
Applicant is not depicting the complete truth.
8.In any case in the FIR against the Applicant, the
incident is divided into two parts. In the first part, Milind and
Nitin were assaulted. Nitin has suffered simple injuries. In the
second part of the incident, other accused were called by
Shantaram. Thereafter the Applicant gave a blow with a stick
on the Ketan’s shoulder. Therefore, the Applicant could not
have shared any common object of causing grievous injury on
Milind. He is only involved in the later part of the incident. All
the injuries caused in the second part are simple. Therefore, at
this stage, it is difficult to observe that the Applicant was a
member of an unlawful assembly whose object was to commit
offence of attempt to commit murder or cause grievous injury.
9.Considering the lesser role attributed to him and
also taking into account the fact that the Applicant’s group has
suffered grievous injuries, the Applicant’s custodial
4 of 5
: 5 : 6.ABA-270-21.odt
interrogation is not required and he can be protected by an
order of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.111/2020 registered at Karjat Police
Station, District – Raigad, the applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with
one or two sureties in the like amount.
(iii)Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed
of accordingly.
Digitally signed by PradeepkumarP. Deshmane PradeepkumarP. DeshmaneDate: 2021.02.05 12:42:22 +0530
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in connection with charges of attempt to commit murder where the role is attributed as lesser and his group suffered grievous injuries.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the nature of allegations and cross-complaint.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Digambar Bhau Dhule
State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court