Allowed

Kamal Babu Rathod and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Feb 2021ABA/347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants in C.R.No.243/2020 involving affray and assault. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as only one grievous injury was not attributed to the applicants and their medical negligence status required protection.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties.

Kamal Babu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

45 ABA 347-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2021

¶4

1. Kamal Babu Rathod
2. Vimal Bhimrao Rathod
3. Mahananda Sunil Rathod…Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Atul Patil, Advocate for the Applicants.
Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 10th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.243/2020 registered at Vairag Police

¶9

Station, Dist. Solapur dated 5th July 2020 under Sections 143, 147,
148, 149, 324, 326, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Subsequently, Section 307 is added.

¶10

2. Heard Mr. Atul Patil, learned Counsel for the applicants
and Smt. J. S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

1 of 4

Manjusha

45 ABA 347-2021.odt

3. The F.I.R is lodged by one Santosh Rathod. He has
stated that on 4th July, 2020 one Atul Rathod from the applicants’
group had cut the electricity wire of a bore well. On 5th July 2020,
the informant Santosh’s brother Namdev questioned Atul about
his act. Atul had taken offence. He went to Sanjay Rathod’s house
and brought an iron pipe. He was followed by other accused
including the present applicants. The applicant Vimal is described
as Rajabai and applicant Mahananda is described as Ranjana.
The accused were carrying sword, sticks, axe, sickle, etc. They
mounted assault on informants’ group. In the incident, informant’s
wife Usha, Somu Rathod, Sanjay Rathod, Namdev Rathod and the
informant himself suffered injuries. The allegations against the
present applicants are that they threw chilly power in the eyes of
the informant Sanjay and Babita. After the incident, the F.I.R is
lodged.

¶15

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the
chargesheet in this case is already filed as some of the accused
were arrested. He has annexed a copy of the chargesheet. He
submitted that except Babita, nobody has suffered any grievous

2 of 4

Manjusha

45 ABA 347-2021.odt

injury. As per the injury certificate annexed to this application. It is
part of the chargesheet. He submitted that there is nothing to show
that any of the injured had suffered any damage to their eyes
because of chilly power. The medical certificate does not reflect
any such thing. He submitted that chilly power was not found on
the spot. According to him, all the applicants are ladies and two of
them are Senior Citizens. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is
not necessary.

¶20

5. Learned APP relied on the chargesheet filed and the
statements of the first informant and the eye witnesses.

¶21

6. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have
perused the chargesheet including the statements of the eye
witnesses. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the
applicants the injury certificate annexed to this chargesheet shows
that only Babita had suffered a grievous injury. But that injury is
not attributed to these applicants. There is nothing to indicate that
any of the injured had suffered damage because of the chilly
power allegedly thrown by the present applicants. It was not found
on the spot. Thus, apparently the version of the informant is

3 of 4

Manjusha

45 ABA 347-2021.odt

exaggerated to include all the family members including ladies of
the applicants’ family. The incident is old. The other accused were
arrested and released on bail. The chargesheet is already filed.

¶26

7. In this view of the mater, custodial interrogation of the
applicants is not necessary. They can be protected by the order of
anticipatory bail.

¶27

8. Hence, the following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i)In the event of their arrest in connection with
C.R.No.243/2020 registered at Vairag Police
Station, Dist. Solapur, the Applicants are
directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each with one or
two sureties each in the like amount.

¶30

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶32

4 of 4

¶33

Manjusha

Kamal Babu Rathod and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Babu Rathod 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay @ Mahadev Raju Chatake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parmeshwar @ Bhau Nana Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mosin Akbar Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangal Shantaram Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Dadabhau Wagdare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul S/O Sudhakar Falake Vs the State of Maharashtra