Allowed

Maruti Arjun Tambe and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Feb 2021ABA/2752/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by three relatives of the deceased in a criminal case concerning suicide amidst a land dispute. The court noted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on bail upon furnishing PR bonds of Rs.30,000 each with sureties in like amounts in case of arrest.

Maruti Arjun Tambe and Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 19-aba-2752-19.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2752 OF 2019

¶5

1. Maruti Arjun Tambe
2. Mrs. Ranjana Maruti Tambe
3. Vishal Maruti Tambe.... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for Applicants.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 04th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No. 248 of 2019 registered at Wavi Police
Station, Nashik Rural, on 19/11/2019, under section 306 r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶10

2.Heard Shri. Vikas Shivarkar, learned counsel for the
applicants and Shri. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

¶11

3.The case is about suicide committed by one Bharat

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

Gokhale

¶14

 : 2 : 19-aba-2752-19.odt

¶15

Tambe. The applicant No.1 is Bharat’s brother, the applicant No.2
is applicant No.1’s wife and applicant No.3 is applicant No.1’s son.
4.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is

¶16

lodged by widow of the deceased. She has stated that the family of
the deceased had civil dispute with the family of the applicants in
respect of a land. The dispute was pending in the court at Sinnar.
About a month prior to the incident, the court had given its
decision. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant No.1 did not
accept the decision and still obtained more land in his possession.
The dispute, therefore, continued. It is alleged that the applicants
used to continuously harass the family of the deceased and used to
beat the family of the deceased. It is alleged that the applicants
used to threaten the deceased of committing his murder and used
to abuse him. On 06/11/2019 also the deceased was threatened by
the applicant Nos.1 and 3. Ultimately, on 14/11/2019 the
deceased committed suicide by hanging himself from a tree. On
this basis, the F.I.R. is lodged.

¶17

5.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that,
assuming the averments in the F.I.R. to be true, no offence U/s.306

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

 : 3 : 19-aba-2752-19.odt

¶20

of I.P.C. is made out. At the highest, allegations are that the
applicants were harassing the family of the deceased because of
land dispute. He submitted that the applicants were on interim
protection for a long period and, therefore, their custodial
interrogation is not necessary. He further submitted that, now the
charge-sheet is already filed and, therefore, nothing remains to be
investigated.

¶21

6.Learned APP relied on the F.I.R. and statements of the
witnesses recorded in the charge-sheet.

¶22

7.I have considered these submissions. The charge-sheet
contains statements of the family members of the deceased.
Besides that, other villagers are referring to the version given by
the first informant and her family members. Therefore, the
prosecution case does not travel beyond the allegations in the F.I.R.
From the F.I.R. itself it is clear that there was a land dispute
between two families and, therefore, they were angry with each
other. However, the case of the first informant is that, it is the
applicants’ family who was constantly harassing, threatening and
abusing the deceased, because of which he committed suicide.

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

 : 4 : 19-aba-2752-19.odt

¶25

Considering the averments in the F.I.R., it does show that
harassment was caused to the deceased but the allegations fall
short of the requirements of section 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. The
applicants are on interim protection since December, 2019 and,
therefore, after such a long period, their custodial interrogation in
the facts of the case is not necessary. They can be protected by an
order of anticipatory bail. The charge-sheet is already filed,
therefore, investigation is also complete.

¶26

8.Hence, the following order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i)In the event of their arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 248 of 2019 registered at Wavi Police
Station, Nashik Rural, the applicants are directed
to be released on bail on their furnishing PR
bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees
Thirty Thousand each Only) with one or two
sureties each in the like amount.

¶29

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶31

4 of 4

Maruti Arjun Tambe and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Arjun Tambe and Ors. 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

Somnath Kondaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aasha Patrick Manwel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Usman Abid Hussain Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Shivaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Manik Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray @ Datta Balu Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra