Allowed

Tejas Dinesh Badgujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC9 Aug 2021ABA/654/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with offences under various sections of the IPC and the Maharashtra Police Act. The High Court observed that the FIR attributed no specific role to the applicant. Consequently, the court dismissed the state's objection and granted bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions of cooperation with police and non-tampering with evid

Tejas Dinesh Badgujar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

12 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2021

¶4

TEJAS DINESH BADGUJAR
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya C Deshpande
APP for Respondents: Mr. V.M. Kagne.

¶7

CORAM : V.G. BISHT, J. DATE : 9^th August.2021.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1]This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred
by the applicant seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime
No. 79 of 2021, registered with Police Station Dhule City, Dist. Dhule, for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147,
148, 149 of IPC and under Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act.

¶10

2]From the FIR, it is seen that on 29th March, 2021, at 6.30
p.m. when the informant was standing outside his house, the accused
Nandan Bang alongwith other accused persons came on Motorcycle and
started quarreling with one Rizvi alias Banti Jamil Ahmed on account of
payment of balance amount in the transaction of sell of motor cycle
between Nandan Bang and Rizvi alias Banti Jamil Ahmed. It is alleged
that when the informant tried to intervene in the quarrel, the accused
persons assaulted him with dangerous and sharp weapon. It is alleged
that the informant was seriously injured in the incident.

¶11

3]Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP,
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there is no specific

¶12

{2}

¶13

12 sr.no..odt

¶14

role attributed to the present applicant and hence, there is no necessity of
custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶15

5]Per contra, the learned APP opposed the application,
contending that the offence alleged is serious.

¶16

6]On going through the FIR, it appears that there is no specific
role attributed to the applicant. This being so, the present application
deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶17

: O R D E R :

¶18

[I]In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with Crime No. No. 79 of 2021, registered with Police Station Dhule City,
Dist. Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504,
506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and under Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, the applicant be enlarged on bail on his
furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with one or two sureties
in the like amount.

¶19

[II]The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
as and when called and shall cooperate with the police in the
investigation.

¶20

[III]He shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶21

7]The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶22

[V.G. BISHT]
 JUDGE.

¶23

grt/-

Tejas Dinesh Badgujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Dinesh Badgujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Guruvirsingh Harasingh Bagga Vs Arvind Bankatlal Lathi and Others

Aone @ Bappa Haiwan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta Navnath Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manish Vijayshankar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra